The three Ann Arbor districts in the new district map of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, which was adopted by the county apportionment commission on Wednesday. The map was not intentionally drawn in the shape of faces – that's just a bonus. (Image links to full map.) (Photos by the writer.)

The redistricting also puts incumbents Alicia Ping, a Republican, and Democrat Wes Prater into the same district – the new District 3, covering south and southwestern Washtenaw County, including the city of Saline. The plan also keeps Scio Township mostly in the same district, District 1. Previously the township had been fragmented into several districts.

The vote came after more than a month of meetings and an hour of discussion and public commentary on Wednesday, including some harsh words from the only Republican on the five-member commission, Mark Boonstra. Boonstra, chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee, charged that he’d been pressured to adopt a 12-district plan that he said favored the incumbents and put Republican contenders at a disadvantage. Of the current 11-member county board, only three commissioners are Republican.

The plan that Boonstra says he was pressured to accept was the first one voted down on Wednesday – supported only by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who proposed it, and Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party. A second vote taken on a 9-district plan drawn by Boonstra was also defeated – Boonstra was the only one who voted in favor of it.

The final vote was for a 9-district plan drafted by county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and revised with input from other Democrats on the apportionment commission, including Kestenbaum and county treasurer Catherine McClary. It gained unanimous support from the full commission. [.pdf file of adopted 9-district county map]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, based on population changes determined by the U.S. census. Until this week, only two plans had been offered: one for 9 districts, another for 12. However, just hours before Wednesday’s 5:30 p.m. meeting, several new plans were submitted for consideration. In total, 11 plans were considered by the commission – for 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 21 districts. One resident during public commentary said he’d attended several previous meeting, and that it was shocking to arrive and see so many new plans on the day of the final vote.

All county commissioners are elected to two-year terms. The new districts will be used in next year’s elections, for commissioners who will take office in January 2013.

For additional background about the redistricting process, see Chronicle coverage: “No Decision Yet on County Redistricting,” “County Board Districts Likely to Change,” “Public Gives Input on County Redistricting,” “Washtenaw Redistricting Work Begins” and “County Clerk Outlines Redistricting Process.”

Initial Public Commentary

There were two opportunities for public commentary – the first one came at the start of Wednesday’s meeting. Among the group of a dozen or so people attending the meeting were four current county commissioners: Kristin Judge (D-District 7), Wes Prater (D-District 4), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Nancy Hedberg, Scio Township clerk, thanked commissioners for their hard work, and for taking her comments into consideration in their plans. [Scio Township is currently part of several county districts. Most of the proposed plans kept the township in only one or two districts.] While she liked one of the 9-district plans, Hedberg said she thought that one of the 12-district plans represented Scio the best, since it included part of Ann Arbor Township in the same district – the townships share similar issues, she said. However, if they go with the 12 districts, she added, “I would hope and pray that you never have a tie vote.”

Wes Prater, a York Township resident who currently represents District 4 on the county board of commissioners, said it looked like someone was trying to get rid of some of the commissioners: “That’s very evident here.” He said the apportionment commission had done a good job, and that the 12-district plan was by far the best one, as he’d indicated at previous meetings. It gives county commissioners about the right amount of population to represent. He said he didn’t know how they could handle a five-district plan, since the area for each district would be much larger. Prater said he gets calls from constituents all the time, and people are surprised when he tells them what’s available from the county, which he called an invisible government. While adding a new district, the 12-district plan would also keep the current commissioners in their current districts, he noted, adding “maybe that’s not what you want to do, but that’s OK.”

Bill Bigler of Ann Arbor asked whether the public would have another opportunity to address the apportionment commission. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, the commission’s chair, said there would be additional public commentary, but it was slated at the end of the meeting – after a likely vote to adopt a plan. Catherine McClary, the county treasurer and a member of the apportionment commission, said she wouldn’t object to moving public commentary – allowing people to comment after the plans had been presented, but prior to the commission’s deliberations and vote. Other commissioners agreed to that change.

Rob Turner, a Republican who represents District 1 on the county board of commissioners, looked at the redistricting plans before Wednesday's meeting and wrote a letter to the apportionment commission giving his feedback. A family commitment prevented him from attending the meeting later in the day.

Eric Sheie Scheie of Ann Arbor said he was surprised to see so many additional plans at this meeting – he wasn’t sure what was going on. [Sheie has filed nominating petitions with the city of Ann Arbor clerk's office and will be a Republican candidate for the city council seat in Ward 4, which is currently held by Democrat Marcia Higgins, an erstwhile Republican. ]

Kestenbaum read a handwritten letter from county commissioner Rob Turner, a Republican who represents District 1, which covers the west and northwest portion of the county. Turner felt that the plans with fewer districts resulted in districts that were too large for commissioners effectively to stay in contact with constituents, and that 21 districts would be too costly and make it difficult to get things done. He said he leaned toward a 10-district plan – one proposed by Boonstra – that would keep costs down.

McClary read an email that the commission had received from Dan Murray of Saline, who said he preferred the 9-district plan.

Apportionment Commissioner Commentary

Before the plans were presented, Mark Boonstra – a member of the apportionment commission, and chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee – read a statement that raised concerns over the redistricting process. [.pdf file of Boonstra's full statement]

“I think it’s time to say some things very candidly about this process,” Boonstra began. The commission is obliged by state statue and case law to consider specific factors when redistricting, he said, but one thing they are not to consider is partisan advantage. It’s an issue that he’s particularly sensitive to, he said, given that he’s the only Republican on the five-member commission, that only a third of the population in the county are Republicans, and that only three of the 11-member county board are Republicans.

He noted that he’s been interested in addressing the issue of township islands located within the city of Ann Arbor. [The issue of how to handle township islands has emerged at each of the apportionment commission's meetings. According to city of Ann Arbor planning staff, there are roughly 560 township properties located within the city. Most of the parcels are single- or two-family residential properties, or are vacant lots. The large majority of islands belong to Ann Arbor Township, followed by Scio Township, with a handful left in Pittsfield Township.]

The islands cause split precincts, he said, which is something they should try to avoid if possible. But he kept being told that it was impossible to resolve all the island issues. It took him a long time to get the data he requested, but he eventually did and was able to draw plans that did, in fact, resolve all the issues related to township islands and eliminate all split precincts, he said.

Boonstra noted that the first plan submitted several weeks ago by Larry Kestenbaum, for 12 districts, added a new district for Scio Township but kept all the current commissioners in their own districts – even though “three of them live within a stone’s throw of each other.” [He was referring to Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Wes Prater (D-District 4) and Kristin Judge (D-District 7).]

Even though the apportionment commission is not required to draw districts that would protect current incumbents, Boonstra said he was willing to support a 12-district plan with some modifications. The original plan unnecessarily split certain geographic areas to make one particular district likely to be more Democratic than it currently is – “and it just so happened to be the very district where a Republican defeated a Democratic incumbent in the last election,” he said. [This was a reference to District 2, in which Republican Dan Smith defeated Democrat incumbent Ken Schwartz in November 2010.]

He proposed revisions to the 12-district plan, but that plan was then revised again by Kestenbaum. This latest version, Boonstra said, split two precincts in York Township – for the purpose of boosting the Democratic incumbent [Wes Prater], keeping Prater’s residence in that district and making it even more difficult for Republicans to win that seat, he said. In addition, Boonstra contended that the revisions added one northern Ann Arbor precinct to the district that includes Ann Arbor Township district, making it more difficult for Republicans to win.

Boonstra said that over the past weekend, he learned that certain incumbent Democrats were upset with him and had vowed to “turn up the heat.” Then on Monday, he said, a new five-district plan was circulated among the apportionment commissioners. [That plan was drawn by Kestenbaum.] Boonstra said it would fail every test except for population variance, and seemed designed to send the message that he should play ball or risk losing Republican representation on the board of commissioners. “That is improper,” Boonstra said.

From left: Mark Boonstra, Catherine McClary, Larry Kestenbaum of the county apportionment commission at their May 11 meeting.

There’s no surer way to cost taxpayers a lot of money in attorney fees, he said, than to propose a plan that will be challenged in the state Court of Appeals. And addressing incumbent Democrats on the county board, he said they should make their statements during public commentary, but otherwise should “butt out.”

“We have a solemn duty to perform,” Boonstra said, “and it does not involve drawing district lines either to keep you in a safe district or to try to oust you from the board. Let us do our job.”

He noted that he had submitted four plans – for 8, 9, 10 and 11 districts – that all fully resolve the issues of township islands and split precincts. He encouraged serious consideration of those plans. [.pdf of Boonstra's 8-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 9-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 10-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 11-district plan]

Cleveland Chandler, chair of the county’s Democratic Party, was the only other commissioner to weigh in before the formal presentation of the redistricting plans. He said he’d just received Boonstra’s four plans that morning. He noted that the last time the board of commissioners had nine districts, there were about 64,000 fewer residents in Washtenaw County. In addition, the road mileage in the county has increased from about 12,000 miles to roughly 16,000 miles – taking care of roads is one of the county’s more important jobs, he said. [Though the county board of commissioners appoints the Washtenaw County road commissioners, the road commission is a separate county entity.]

Chandler said that he supported the 12-district plan, because cutting the number of commissioners wouldn’t be in the best interest of the citizens.

Redistricting Plans: Presentation

Kestenbaum was the first to present his redistricting plans, starting with the 12-district plan that had undergone several revisions. He began by saying that Boonstra’s criticisms weren’t justified. [Though Boonstra did not identify people by name in his remarks, he later confirmed that his comments were directed at Kestenbaum and county commissioner Wes Prater.]

Kestenbaum said he’d tried to create smooth boundaries, because complicated boundaries are always subject to change. He noted that this plan did split several precincts, but stated that precincts will likely be redrawn anyway. [Kestenbaum had stated at previous meetings that the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti will likely see their precincts redrawn, as part of the redistricting process for state and congressional districts.]

He also said he believed the goal of putting all township islands in a district with their township can be pushed too far – islands are scattered throughout the city, he said, and some township voters might not want to be included in a district dominated by Ann Arbor.

Maps for six of the 11 redistricting plans hung on the walls of the lower-level conference room at the county administration building, where the May 11 apportionment meeting was held. The map on the far right, drawn by Larry Kestenbaum, is for 21 districts – the maximum allowed by law.

Kestenbaum said he regretted that York Township was split, but that part of the goal was to keep Pittsfield Township intact. Boonstra had felt the original version disadvantaged Republicans, Kestenbaum said, but that was never his intent. At Boonstra’s suggestion, he had moved two urban precincts in southern Superior Township into the district with Ypsilanti Township.

Mackie asked how Kestenbaum’s plan affects the administration of elections – would it be more difficult for township clerks and the county clerk’s office? Kestenbaum said he thought the proposed changes would have only a minor impact.

Boonstra objected to the 12-district plan, which would lead to redrawing precincts in the city of Ann Arbor. Shouldn’t they be following precinct lines, rather than having precincts redrawn to fit their plan? Ideally, Kestenbaum said, but he didn’t believe it would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Mackie said the process this year had been more pleasant than the one he was involved with 10 years ago. At that time, he got a great deal of grief from incumbent commissioners, he said. Mackie praised Julia Roberts, who had been hired as support staff for the redistricting process – she knew the software, not the politicians, and she wasn’t biased, he said.

Mackie expressed regret that his 9-district plan would hurt his favorite commissioner, Wes Prater. He met Prater in 1978, when Mackie was a new assistant county prosecutor. Prater is the ideal public servant, Mackie said, and yet the 9-district plan isn’t kind to him. There’s nothing partisan about it – it just worked out that way, he said.

It wasn’t necessary to threaten lawsuits, Mackie said, referencing Boonstra’s commentary. He believed they’d adopt a plan that’s fair to everyone. As far as Republicans being in the minority, “I don’t know what to do about that,” he said. People live where they live.

Wrapping up, Mackie said he now preferred a revised version of his 9-district plan – labeled plan K. [This is the plan that was ultimately adopted.] It moves some precincts from southern Superior Township into the district with Ypsilanti Township, because those two areas have more in common. He noted that the plan’s population variance is 5.6%, which is lower than his original plan. [Districts are allowed up to an 11.9% population variance set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Abate v. Mundt. While the goal is to create districts with roughly equal population, the court ruled that there can be up to an 11.9% variance from that “ideal” population.]

McClary also thanked Roberts as well as the staff of the county clerk’s office. She said she’d asked Mackie to preserve the student districts, and the 9-district plan K had achieved that goal more than the 12-district plan. Plan K also strengthens District 6 for minority representation, she said. McClary said she knew Boonstra was concerned about the township islands, but she couldn’t see her way clear to address that and still achieve other goals. She agreed with Mackie that they took more grief about the process 10 years ago. At that time, she had supported dropping down to five districts, but she no longer would support that. McClary thought the 9-district plan K made the most sense.

Chandler noted that this was the first time he’d been involved in this process. He felt like he’d been boxed in a bit. The Washtenaw County Democrats had passed a resolution in December 2010 – before he became chair of that group and before the redistricting process started – which called for preserving 11 districts to ensure minority representation. Actually, he said, his view is to find the best plan to represent all the citizens of the county. He said he isn’t even familiar with where the Republican parts of the county are located. Chandler said he thought nine commissioners wouldn’t be enough to adequately represent the increased population of the county.

Mackie said he’d been offended at a previous meeting when someone during public commentary had called for making sure the seat of one particular commissioner was preserved, because of minority representation. [The remarks had referred to the seat held by Ronnie Peterson, who represents District 6 in Ypsilanti and parts of Ypsilanti Township. Peterson is black.] For one thing, Mackie said, there is another minority on the board – Conan Smith, the board’s chair, is the grandson of the city’s first black mayor, Al Wheeler, who was also the first African American professor of microbiology at the University of Michigan. Mackie also noted that countywide, voters have elected minorities – including judges [Cedric Simpson and Nancy Francis, a daughter of Al Wheeler] and the sheriff [Jerry Clayton].

The county board isn’t like most legislative bodies, Mackie said. Its main job is to set priorities through the budget. Prater has always understood that, he said. Mackie concluded by saying the 9-district plan does a better job at representing county citizens.

Kestenbaum mentioned that when the redistricting process started, his original intent had been to draw plans for the full range of options allowed by law – from five to 21 districts. He hadn’t been able to do that, he said, but he did draw up plans at the end of the range. A five-member board would be completely different, he said, and would require a lot more work from each commissioner. From a population variance standpoint, it’s the best plan – overall, it has less than a 1% variance from the ideal, he said.

Regarding the 21-district plan, Kestenbaum said he didn’t think there was any chance it would be adopted, but it was interesting to see.

Boonstra was the final apportionment commissioner to weigh in. It had been his first time to serve on the commission too, he said, and he’d gotten to know some people he hadn’t known before, and had come to like and respect them. He said he hadn’t come into the process with any particular plan in mind.

Regarding the other new plans, he said he’d only been sent the five-district plan, and he found it curious that he hadn’t been sent the other new plans. He noted that he never withdrew his 12-district plan – one that had made revisions to Kestenbaum’s original – but that it wasn’t included in their discussion, and hadn’t been posted on the wall with the other plans. It’s still on the apportionment commission’s website, he said. He preferred it to the one that Kestenbaum had revised again, which splits two York Township precincts “for no appropriate reason.”

Of the three proposed 9-district plans, Boonstra said he preferred plan K.

He then described his own four plans for 8, 9, 10 and 11 districts, noting how they addressed the problems with split precincts and township islands by creating districts that spanned the townships and city.

Additional Public Commentary

Bill Bigler said he had a lot of questions. He asked for clarification – why does it make elections a nightmare to have split precincts and township islands?

From left: Scio Township trustee Dick DeLong, Scio Township clerk Nancy Hedberg, and Stan Watson of Pittsfield Township at the May 11 meeting of the county apportionment commission.

Nancy Hedberg, Scio Township’s clerk, gave an example to illustrate the issues. For the November 2010 election, she said, there were 21 ballot styles for 9 precincts in Scio. It’s challenging for election workers to figure out which ballot to give to each voter. It’s not just because Scio has been split into multiple county board districts – it’s also represented by more than one state legislative district, congressional district and school district. And none of the boundaries match, she noted. Even though there are still some splits in the proposed county redistricting plans, they are much better than what currently exists, she said.

Al Hegerich of Ann Arbor clarified that precincts in Ann Arbor for state legislative and congressional redistricts will likely be redrawn – Kestenbaum confirmed that was the case. Hegerich said that whatever they do, they should aim for the most democratically representative plan. He noted that they have a difficult task, adding “Have fun!”

Kristin Judge, a current county commissioner representing District 7 in Pittsfield Township, thanked the apportionment commission for their time and effort. She said she knew it was a thankless job.

Eric Sheie of Ann Arbor noted that he’s attended several of the redistricting meetings, and it was shocking to arrive and see so many new plans. The last couple of meetings the debate had been between two plans – for 9 or 12 districts. So it was mind-boggling to see these new plans. He said he’d previously favored the 12-district plan, but he sensed that the group was leaning toward nine districts. In that case, he hoped they’d choose the 9-district plan that eliminated township islands and had the lowest population variance.

Stan Watson of Pittsfield Township thanked the commission for their work. He favored the 9-district plan with the lowest variance and that dealt with the township islands.

Bigler asked Kestenbaum to explain why it’s better to have “simple” boundaries, even if they split precincts. Kestenbaum said it was important to think about how voters interact with boundaries. Though he acknowledged the example was outdated, he said to imagine a voter on election eve, squinting at a map in the Ann Arbor News and trying to figure out where you should vote. It’s also an issue for people trying to campaign or represent a district – there are different costs involved in creating complex district boundaries.

When Bigler noted that the information is on everyone’s voter registration card, Kestenbaum asked whether Bigler carried that card with him. Yes, Bigler said. Kestenbaum then asked everyone in the room whether they had their cards, and most people raised their hands. Kristin Judge observed that it was likely a skewed sampling, indicating that the people at the meeting were probably more politically active than most.

Yousef Rabhi, a county commissioner who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, thanked the commission for the plans that keep students and young professionals generally in the same district – that will empower them to run for office, he said. Rabhi said he wasn’t overjoyed with all the plans, but he appreciated the opportunity for students who live in the eastern and southern parts of Ann Arbor to vote together – three of the plans do that, he said. He agreed with Mackie that a redistricting plan shouldn’t be drawn with one commissioner in mind.

Additional Public Commentary: Partisanship

Bigler raised the issue of partisan advantage in the redistricting process. There are three Republicans on the 11-member county board, or about a quarter of the board membership. However, Republicans account for about a third of the population in the county, he said. He asked the commission to comment on how the proposed plans would give partisan advantage one way or another.

McClary commented that she’s been involved in politics since the early 1980s 1972 and you never know how voters are going to act. Kestenbaum agreed, saying that those who try to gerrymander often don’t get the results they want – voters are unpredictable. He said commissioners wouldn’t comment about the plans as they relate to partisan advantage, but that Bigler certainly could.

Bigler responded by saying he wasn’t familiar enough with the plans or the political demographics to know what impact the changes would have.

Sheie said it would be dangerous to redistrict with an eye toward partisan advantage, because it would be based on current conditions. But census data indicates that the population is shifting, he noted – in the coming years, the political demographics will likely change. It would be like”trying to hit a moving dartboard,” he said.

Mackie observed that when he was first elected in 1992, he was the first Democratic prosecuting attorney elected since 1918. Kestenbaum was the first Democratic county clerk elected since 1932.

Additional Public Commentary: Township Islands

Bigler said he still had unresolved questions, but that he’d support Boonstra’s 9-district plan, which cleans up the township islands and doesn’t split precincts.

Mackie noted that he used to live in a township island – his mother’s house was on South State Street, in an Ann Arbor Township island. (He said people would likely recognize the house – it’s now occupied by a palm reader, and has a sign with a large hand on it.) As you drive south down State Street, you go through Ann Arbor, then Pittsfield Township, then Ann Arbor Township, then back into Ann Arbor. The real solution is to “get rid of the damn islands,” he said – it’s a ridiculous way to do business. But local governments keep kicking that can down the road, he added. It needs to be resolved.

Rabhi said he was under the impression that the islands would eventually be annexed. McClary said there’s an agreement with Ann Arbor Township to annex islands as property changed hands, or when the homes needed to be connected to the city’s sewer system. And many islands are vacant land – Boonstra noted that in his redistricting plans, he wasn’t concerned with those properties.

Kestenbaum observed that there are far fewer township islands than there were 20 years ago – it’s getting better.

Redistricting Plans: The Vote

Following the final public commentary, three votes were taken in quick order, with no discussion.

Kestenbaum made a motion to approve his 12-district plan. It was rejected on a 2-3 vote, with support only from Chandler and Kestenbaum.

Boonstra than moved to approve his 9-district plan. It was defeated on a 1-4 vote – only Boonstra voted for it.

Mackie then moved to approve the third iteration of his original 9-district plan – plan K. It received unanimous support.

“I believe we’re done,” Kestenbaum declared.

The approved 9-district plan for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Links to larger image.)

Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party, and county treasurer Catherine McClary look at proposed redistricting plans before the start of the May 4 apportionment commission meeting. Both serve on the five-member commission.

There are currently 11 districts represented on the board of commissioners, including four in Ann Arbor. A 12-district plan was presented last month by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, a Democrat who chairs the apportionment commission, and Mark Boonstra, a commission member and chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee. This plan – which would create a new district for Scio Township, but keep many elements of the current districts intact – was tweaked slightly by Kestenbaum since the last meeting.

A second plan, submitted by county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, drops the number of districts to nine. It would reduce the number of Ann Arbor districts from four to three, and put two current commissioners – Republican Alicia Ping of District 3, who lives in Saline, and Democrat Wes Prater of District 4, a York Township resident – in the same district. There were no changes to this plan since it was presented last month.

So far, no plans have been submitted by the public or by two other members of the commission: Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party, and county treasurer Catherine McClary. Chandler has previously expressed tentative support for the 12-district plan.

On Wednesday, McClary indicated that she’d like to see plans developed for eight and 10 districts. Mackie urged anyone who intends to submit plans to do it as quickly as possible, and to provide the plans to the commission in advance of their next meeting. The apportionment commission has scheduled another meeting for Wednesday, May 11 at 5:30 p.m. in the lower-level conference room at 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor.

[For additional information about the redistricting process, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board Districts Likely to Change," "Public Gives Input on County Redistricting," "Washtenaw Redistricting Work Begins" and "County Clerk Outlines Redistricting Process"]

Two Plans – And More to Come?

At Wednesday’s meeting, two plans were again presented. A nine-district plan proposed by Brian Mackie was unchanged from the previous meeting on April 28. It would reduce the number of Ann Arbor districts from four to three, and put two current commissioners – Republican Alicia Ping of District 3, who lives in Saline, and Democrat Wes Prater of District 4, a York Township resident – in the same district. [.pdf file of nine-district map]

The 12-district plan – proposed by Larry Kestenbaum and Mark Boonstra – had been revised slightly by Kestenbaum since the last meeting. The plan creates a new district for Scio Township, but keeps four seats on the board for Ann Arbor. [.pdf of revised 12-district map] [.pdf map of original 12-district plan]

Kestenbaum briefly described the revisions he’d made. They include:

• Using M-14 as the northern boundary for the northwest district in Ann Arbor. Previously, that district included some areas north of M-14.
• Changing the boundaries for a split of York Township, which is part of two districts.
• Shifting a parcel that was previously “precariously connected” to the new Scio Township district. The new plan calls for that parcel to be included in the southern district of Ann Arbor.
• Eliminating a split of Pittsfield Township.

From left: Larry Kestenbaum, Mark Boonstra and Brian Mackie, three of the five members of the Washtenaw County apportionment commission, look at a proposed 12-district map. It had been originally drawn by Kestenbaum, revised by Boonstra, then revised again by Kestenbaum.

The overall maximum population variance for the 12-district plan is 7.92%. That’s slightly higher than the overall 6.48% variance of the nine-district plan. Both are within the allowable 11.9% variance set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Abate v. Mundt. While the goal is to create districts with roughly equal population, the court ruled that there can be up to an 11.9% variance from that “ideal” population.

Boonstra said he wanted time to review the revisions. His initial impression was that the changes didn’t address the issue of township islands within the city of Ann Arbor. There may be a mechanism to resolve that in a better way, he said, and he wanted to think it through. Boonstra also noted that the plan included a split precinct in York Township.

Kestenbaum said he understood there was some interest in exploring other plans – possibly for 8, 9, 10 or 12 districts. McClary had requested that the commission not vote on a plan that evening, he said, adding that he agreed.

Mackie asked for details on other plans. “If people are going to submit plans, I’d hope they’d do it fairly soon,” he said.

Mackie noted that the apportionment commission has another meeting scheduled on May 11, and he hoped they could adopt a plan at that time. And if there are other plans to consider, he urged that they be distributed well in advance of the next meeting. He asked who has expressed interest in submitting other plans.

Kestenbaum then turned to McClary, who said that people have talked to her about those different district sizes. There are two things that are important for her, she said. One relates to student neighborhoods – a speaker during public commentary at a previous meeting had mentioned the importance of not splitting up university neighborhoods into different districts.

[That speaker was Yousef Rahbi, a current county commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, who addressed the apportionment commission at their April 28 meeting. He wanted to avoid a redistricting that would result in the kind of pie-shaped wards created for Ann Arbor city council, which split student neighborhoods into different wards.]

McClary said it’s difficult when student housing around the University of Michigan north campus, medical campus, and central campus are in different districts.

McClary said she was also concerned about the township islands. She noted that some township islands aren’t populated at this point – and if someone eventually moves onto those parcels, they’ll be required to be annexed into the city, she said.

[The issue of how to handle township islands has emerged at each of the apportionment commission's meetings. Because districts must consist of contiguous parcels, it's not possible to include all township islands in the same district. According to city of Ann Arbor planning staff, there are roughly 560 township properties located within the city. Most of the parcels are single- or two-family residential properties, or are vacant lots. The large majority are in Ann Arbor Township, followed by Scio Township, with a handful left in Pittsfield Township.]

McClary said that Kestenbaum has been very persuasive in arguing that because Ann Arbor is roughly a third of the county’s total population, the total number of districts should be divisible by three – with Ann Arbor getting a third of the seats. But if you take a broader view, she said, and try to keep the townships intact, then that rule no longer applies. McClary said she’s been told that eight or 10 districts could work well, and she wanted to look at that.

Kestenbaum said that as much as he’s concerned with keeping precincts whole, another priority – based on the state statute and case law governing redistricting – is to keep cities and townships in separate districts, as much as possible.

But Boonstra noted that in some cases, certain parts of townships have more in common with adjacent cities. For example, the southern part of Superior Township is more similar to the neighboring city of Ypsilanti than it is to the rural northern part of the township, he said. Kestenbaum acknowledged that there are differences between rural and urban parts of a township.

Public Commentary

Far fewer people attended Wednesday’s meeting than have turned out for previous sessions. Only two people spoke during the two opportunities for public commentary.

Current county commissoners Wes Prater (D-District 4) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) attended Wednesday's meeting. They've been regulars at the apportionment commission meetings.

Dick DeLong, a former county commissioner and current trustee in Scio Township, said he was quite impressed with the 12-district plan. It takes them back to 1992, he said, when most of Scio was in the same district. The nine-district plan is also appealing, he said, but with only nine commissioners, the districts are too large. He preferred 12 districts. DeLong also praised anyone who could come up with a plan – he had tried, he said, but wasn’t able to do it.

Wes Prater, a current commissioner representing District 4, said he was initially skeptical of an even number of districts. But the more he’s thought about it, the more he likes it. It would take seven votes to pass a resolution, but only six to stop it, he said: “I think that’s really kind of intriguing.”

Public Commentary: Commissioner Response

Kestenbaum noted that when he served on the Ingham County board of commissioners in 1980, there were 20 members – the even number wasn’t a problem, he said. [At a February 2011 working session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Kestenbaum expressed a preference for an odd number. From Chronicle coverage: "Kestenbaum said he didn’t think it would be politically viable to talk about an increase in the number of commissioners. He thought that having 5, 7, 9 or 11 districts would be the likely choices, noting that an uneven number is preferable."]

Next Steps

It’s unclear whether more plans will be submitted. Julia Roberts, who was hired as temporary support staff for the apportionment commission and who helped put together the two current proposals, is no longer working in that job. Kestenbaum said Roberts has left instructions for operating the mapping software – DISTRICTSolv – used to generate the district maps, but it’s definitely more challenging to do that without her help.

Based on Wednesday’s discussion, it seems as though McClary is the only commissioner who might be submitting additional proposals. Chandler had previously expressed support for the 12-district plan submitted by Kestenbaum and Boonstra.

The commission’s next meeting is set for Wednesday, May 11 at 5:30 p.m. in the lower-level conference room at 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. If the commission does not vote to approve a redistricting plan at that time, they’ll likely schedule an additional meeting. By law, they must approve a plan within 60 days after block-by-block census data is released. That deadline is June 6.

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie looks on as Julia Roberts hangs a map of Mackie's redistricting plan, which proposes nine districts for the county board of commissioners, instead of the current 11. (Photos by the writer.)

The plans were submitted by three members of the five-member apportionment commission. The 9-district plan was proposed by county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, a Democrat. It would reduce the number of Ann Arbor districts from four to three, and put two current commissioners – Republican Alicia Ping of District 3, who lives in Saline, and Democrat Wes Prater of District 4, a York Township resident – in the same district.

The 12-district plan – which creates a new district for Scio Township – was proposed by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, a Democrat who chairs the apportionment commission, and Mark Boonstra, a commission member and chair of the Washtenaw Republican Party. In this plan, Ann Arbor would retain its four seats on the county board.

The apportionment commission discussed the plans but did not vote. Two additional meetings are scheduled: on Wednesday, May 4 at 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, May 11 at 5:30 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the lower-level conference room at 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. By law, the commission has until June 6 to approve a redistricting plan. Other commission members are county treasurer Catherine McClary, and the chair of the county Democratic Party, Cleveland Chandler.

About a dozen people attended Thursday’s meeting, and many of them spoke during the time allowed for public commentary. Kestenbaum began the meeting by noting that there was no American flag in the room, so they could skip the Pledge of Allegiance.

Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting.

David Raaflaub of Ypsilanti introduced himself as an experienced litigator and a student of gerrymandering for the past 25 years. [He was also a candidate in 2010 for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners in District 6.] He said if he finds that redistricting results in his vote having less value, he’s willing to go to federal court and challenge the commission’s decision as unconstitutional. Raaflaub said he had no doubt that the commission would decide the districts in favor of the Democratic Party. [Of the five-member apportionment commission, four are Democrats.] It’s a “big scoop of power” that they wield, he said, and he regrets that Democrats have ruined so many cities in Michigan. Raaflaub concluded by saying he was there with “not friendly motives” toward what he views as unconstitutional.

Ahmar Iqbal of Ann Arbor spoke on behalf of the Asian Pacific Islander American Vote-Michigan – he’s a board member of that nonprofit organization. He reminded the commission that APIA had sent a letter to them about the issue of a growing Asian population in the county, especially in Ann Arbor. In Washtenaw, Asians, native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders account for 7.9% of the population, according to U.S. census data. In Ann Arbor, that group accounts for 14.39% of the total population. He ask that the commission, as they consider redistricting plans, try to keep this community together.

Bill Bigler of Ann Arbor asked whether the public would have the chance to comment after the commission presented and discussed the plans. Kestenbaum said there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Cleveland Chandler, left, talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi before the start of the April 28 apportionment commission meeting. Chandler, an apportionment commission member, is chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party.

Christina Montague, a former Washtenaw County commissioner from Ann Arbor, talked about the importance of everyone in the community having a voice, and having their vote count. It’s important that minorities in this county have the opportunity to be elected to public office, she said, so that their voice aren’t just heard – they’re also able to make a contribution.

Yousef Rabhi, a current county commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, urged the apportionment commission to not to divide the student populations, if possible. He noted that students were split among different wards in the city of Ann Arbor – South Quad voted in one ward, East Quad in another – and that wasn’t the best situation. It appeared that the proposed 12-district plan accomplishes the goal of keeping students in the same district, he said.

Eric Sheie Scheie of Ann Arbor told the commission that he preferred the 12-district plan, which didn’t seem to split districts as much. He said he didn’t support going down to nine districts.

Public Commentary: Response from Commissioners

Kestenbaum said he’s a long-time admirer of Raaflaub. But as far as concerns over electing commissioners by plurality from single-member districts, he said, that’s not within the province of the apportionment commission. Their charge is to create single-member districts. Given that this style of governance is long-standing in the United States, Kestenbaum questioned whether a constitutional challenge could be successful. If the Supreme Court ruled that it abridged the rights of minority voters in the district, it would be a huge change, he said. It wasn’t that he would necessarily be opposed to a change, he added, but it would be unlikely.

Turning to Iqbal’s remarks, Kestenbaum said he wasn’t sure what specific suggestions Iqbal was offering. The Asian population is large, but it is scattered throughout the city, he said – he didn’t see it as a community that was concentrated and at risk of being broken up by redistricting. That said, Kestenbaum added that he was open to suggestions, but the implications for the apportionment commission’s work weren’t clear to him. He noted that he had worked on Eugene Kang’s campaign for city council several years ago. [Kang lost that 2005 Democratic primary race against Stephen Rapundalo, 480-575, but went on later to work in President Barack Obama's administration.]

Cleveland Chandler said it was important to also respond to Montague’s comments. The commission needs to redraw the maps according to the law, he said, but they also need to ensure that minority representation is maintained. He thought the 12-district plan did that.

Nine-District Plan

Brian Mackie began his presentation by thanking Julia Roberts, a University of Michigan graduate student who’s been hired as support staff for this redistricting process. He said she’d been a tremendous help, and indicated that she didn’t care about the politics or individual players in this process, which was a good thing.

This map shows the proposed 9-district map for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Links to larger image.)

Mackie’s plan proposes nine districts. Major changes include the number of districts in Ann Arbor decreasing from four to three. The plan would also put two current commissioners – Republican Alicia Ping of District 3, who lives in Saline, and Democrat Wes Prater of District 4, a York Township resident – in the same district. [.pdf file of nine-district map]

It’s not possible to completely satisfy each aspect of the statute, Mackie said, but population is the most important consideration – that seems to be true if you look at the appellate court cases on this issue.

Mackie highlighted several aspects of his plan. He noted that districts on the west side of the county were large geographically, but that’s inevitable because of the lower population in that area.

Because Ann Arbor’s population is roughly a third of the total county population, the number of total districts needs to be divisible by three, Mackie noted. In a nine-district plan, that means Ann Arbor is divided into three districts.

Map of Ann Arbor districts in a 9-district plan. (Links to larger image.)

Scio Township is currently represented by six different commissioners – residents there have a right to complain, Mackie said. He pointed out that former county commissioner Dick DeLong, who’s now a Scio Township trustee, had urged them to keep the township in one district, and not divide it. Mackie said it wouldn’t be completely possible, since there are still many township islands within the city of Ann Arbor – those residents would be represented by Ann Arbor commissioners. But the township can be less divided than it is now.

Mackie said that Ypsilanti Township, because of its large population, would need to be divided under any plan, unless there were far fewer districts.

He also noted that he’d been concerned about the 12-district plan because it split Pittsfield Township in a way that seemed to target one current commissioner, putting her in another district. [He was referring to commissioner Kristin Judge, who represents District 7. Her district currently covers the entire township. Later in the meeting, Mark Boonstra said the 12-district plan doesn't target anyone – all current commissioners would remain in separate districts.]

Mark Boonstra, chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee and a member of the county apportionment commission.

Though there can be an 11.9% variance from the county’s “ideal” population in any district, Mackie said that shouldn’t be the target. Rather, they should work for a variance that’s as close to zero as possible. [The “ideal” district population is calculated by dividing the county population by the number of districts. Washtenaw County’s population is 344,791, based on 2010 census data. In Mackie's plan, seven districts have a variance of less than 3.5%. Two districts have much higher variances – though still within the legal limit – going over the ideal by 11.4% in one case (District 3), and under by 10.46% in another (District 4).]

Mackie said he has a great deal of respect for commissioners. Their preferences for the number of districts have varied, he said, from a low of five to a high of 21. But several commissioners – including McClary, a former county commissioner – have indicated that the current 11-district commission functioned better than the 15-district commission that had been in place for 10 years prior to 2001, so he was opting for fewer districts.

In commenting on Mackie’s plan, Mark Boonstra said the 12-district plan – which he and Larry Kestenbaum proposed – doesn’t target any individual commissioner. He also noted that although the nine-district plan leaves Scio Township largely intact, in splits Dexter Township.

Roberts said she thought it was possible to move all of Dexter Township into the same district. It would increase the population variance, but she believed it would still be within the legal limit.

Twelve-District Plan

Mark Boonstra introduced the 12-district plan, describing it as a variation of one that Larry Kestenbaum had drafted. He highlighted some of the changes he’d made from Kestenbaum’s original, such as eliminating a split of Lodi Township and in general improving the variance percentages. [.pdf map of 12-district plan]

The map shows the proposed 12-district Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Links to larger image.)

Kestenbaum pointed out that in the western side of the county, none of the townships are split. Ypsilanti Township is split into multiple districts, but the only way it could stay whole would be if there were just five districts in the county, he said.

He noted that three townships – Ann Arbor, Scio and Pittsfield – have islands in the city of Ann Arbor, so there’s no way to avoid having parts of those townships in different districts.

The district with the highest variance – 4.67% – is the one covering Ypsilanti, Kestenbaum said. Another district, which includes Augusta Township and parts of Ypsilanti and York townships, has a variance of 4.08%. The variances could be lowered by splitting precincts, he said. Kestenbaum noted that Ypsilanti Township’s precincts will likely be redrawn soon as part of the state and Congressional redistricting process, so it’s not as important to keep those precinct boundaries sacred.

This plan proposes four districts in Ann Arbor, divided primarily along major roadways. Kestenbaum noted that there are some split districts, but he said that the precincts in the city will also be redrawn for state and Congressional redistricting.

Map of Ann Arbor districts in a 12-district plan. (Links to larger image.)

Kestenbaum said that only one current commissioner would be affected by this plan, and she had told him that she wasn’t planning to run for re-election. [Kestenbaum was referring to Barbara Bergman, a Democrat representing District 8 in Ann Arbor, who has made that statement several times in public as well.]

Kestenbaum also noted that the numbering on the proposed plan would be changed – the new district, in Scio Township, would be District 12.

In commenting on the plans, Cleveland Chandler said he’s leaning toward the one with 12 districts. It would be a better fit for the county, he said, adding that he’d like to tweak some aspects of it – for example, changing some boundaries in Ypsilanti Township.

Next Steps

One more meeting – on Wednesday, May 4 – had already been scheduled. That meeting starts at 5 p.m. at the lower-level conference room of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The commissioners discussed whether to hold another meeting beyond that, and ultimately decided to schedule one on Wednesday, May 11 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the same location.

Julia Roberts noted that her last day working as support staff for the apportionment commission is May 4. She noted that the commission has until June 6 to select a plan. So far, only the two plans discussed at Wednesday’s meeting have been submitted – Roberts said she has not received any plans from the general public. All commissioners offered their thanks for her work.

Public Commentary: Part II

The meeting concluded with additional public commentary.

Bill Bigler said he’d support a plan that kept the districts as close as possible to the current number, so he preferred the 12-district proposal.

Eric Sheie said that after hearing the discussion, he was more convinced than ever that the 12-district plan would be better. Nine districts makes him nervous, he said.

Christina Montague also expressed preference for the 12-district plan, saying it seemed more responsive to the community and addressed the needs of urban and rural areas.

From left: Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party. All three are members of the county apportionment commission.

Stuart Berry, an Ann Arbor resident, asked what it would cost taxpayers to increase the number of districts to 12.

Kestenbaum replied that it depends on the salary that’s set by commissioners for themselves – now, commissioners are paid $15,500 annually. [Officers of the board are paid somewhat higher salaries.] He said there’s been talk among current commissioners that if the board is expanded, they’d simply take the current total spent on salaries and divide it by 12, rather than 11, to set the new salary. Berry expressed skepticism that this would actually happen.

Catherine McClary, looking at the county’s 2011 budget, reported that the line item for commissioners’ salaries is $261,652. The total budget for commissioners this year – including salaries, benefits, mileage, and travel allowance – is $512,473.

Berry urged the apportionment commission to control costs as much as possible, and not increase the number of districts.

[For additional information about the redistricting process, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input on County Redistricting," "Washtenaw Redistricting Work Begins" and "County Clerk Outlines Redistricting Process"]

Three members of the Washtenaw County apportionment commission, which is tasked with redrawing districts for the county board of commissioners based on 2010 census data. From left: Cleveland Chandler, Washtenaw County Democratic Party chair; county treasurer Catherine McClary; and Mark Boonstra, Washtenaw County Republican Committee chair. Other members are county clerk Larry Kestenbaum and Brian Mackie, the county's prosecuting attorney. (Photos by the writer.)

Eight people addressed the commission during the hearing, which lasted about an hour. Some argued for a reduction in the current 11 districts, saying it would save costs and make for a better functioning board. Others suggested keeping the same number or increasing the number of districts slightly, for better representation.

It’s likely there will be some changes of district lines, even if the number of districts remains the same. The county’s population grew 6.8%, from 322,895 people in 2000 to 344,791 people in 2010, with some parts showing dramatic population shifts. Ypsilanti’s population decreased 12.6%, while several townships – including Saline, Scio and Webster – saw double-digit growth. The city of Ann Arbor accounts for about a third of the county’s population – its population dropped 0.6% to 113,934. [.pdf file of population data for Washtenaw County]

Commission members indicated that they haven’t yet completed any redistricting proposals, though Larry Kestenbaum – the county clerk and chair of the apportionment commission – said he’s developing one for 12 districts. One speaker at the hearing expressed disappointment that proposals weren’t yet available, saying he had hoped to give feedback on specific redistricting plans.

The apportionment commission met for the first time on March 31, when members set a schedule for the process. Its members, determined by state statute, are: The county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum), county treasurer (Catherine McClary), county prosecuting attorney (Brian Mackie), and the chairs of both the county Republican and Democratic parties (Mark Boonstra and Cleveland Chandler). All but Boonstra are Democrats.

Saturday’s public hearing had a lower turnout than the first hearing, which took place on April 9 at the Pittsfield Township hall – 16 people addressed the commission then, according to draft minutes of the meeting.

The next public hearing is set for Thursday, April 21 at 5:30 p.m. at Webster Township hall, 5665 Webster Church Road. A week later, on April 28, the commission meets again and is expected to present redistricting plans and possibly select one. That meeting, which will include time for public commentary, begins at 5:30 p.m. at the county administration building’s lower-level conference room, 200 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The Work of the Apportionment Commission

Larry Kestenbaum, who chairs the apportionment commission, was a few minutes late to the April 16 public hearing – so it was Mark Boonstra who called the meeting to order. He said that at the request of a member of the public, they would begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Catherine McClary suggested that they dispense with other agenda items aside from the public hearing, but that it would be good to provide an overview of the criteria the commission must use to complete the redistricting process.

Boonstra briefly outlined the charge of the apportionment commission: To take the new 2010 census data and redraw districts for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, taking into account population changes in the townships, cities and villages, and in the precincts within those municipalities. For a county the size of Washtenaw, there can be no fewer than five districts, and no more than 21. Currently there are 11 districts – 10 years ago, there were 15. [.pdf map of current districts for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners]

Evaluation criteria for redistricting, as dictated by statute and case law, include:

• Districts must be of substantially equal population. Specifically, each district’s population size must fall within the range of 94.05% to 105.95% of the “ideal” population. The “ideal” district population is calculated by dividing the county population by the number of districts. Washtenaw County’s population is 344,791, based on 2010 census data.
• Each district is represented by a single commissioner – there are no at-large commissioners.
• All parts of a district must be contiguous.
• Districts should be as compact and in as much of a square shape as practical.
• No township or part of a township should be combined with a city or part of a city unless required to meet the population standard.
• Townships, villages and cities should be divided only if necessary to meet the population standard. The same approach applies to precincts.
• Districts should not be drawn to provide a partisan political advantage.

The statute that dictates the apportionment process for county boards is Act 261 of 1966.

Boonstra concluded by saying they won’t be able to satisfy all these criteria completely – it’s a balancing act.

April 16 Public Hearing

Kestenbaum then opened the public hearing portion of the April 16 meeting. Eight people commented, some of them speaking multiple times.

Timothy King of Ypsilanti Township told the commission that he’s been a precinct delegate in the past, and he asked that the redistricting plan not split townships into different districts, if possible. At the least, he hoped the commission would try to keep school districts within the same county board district. When polling stations for two different precincts are located in the same school, “it’s a big hassle for the (poll) workers,” he said.

Christina Lirones of Pittsfield Township, speaking at the April 16 public hearing of the county apportionment commission.

Christina Lirones, former Pittsfield Township clerk and treasurer, advocated for fewer commissioners than the current 11. She said she differed from her [Democratic] party on this point. The county board could function well with nine commissioners, she said, noting that she’s served on various boards with seven members that function quite well.

[In December 2010, the Washtenaw County Democratic Party passed a resolution in support of keeping the current number of districts. The resolution noted that when the county board had 15 commissioners, two of them were minorities – now, there's only one minority commissioner, Ronnie Peterson of District 6 in Ypsilanti. One of the resolution's whereas clauses states: "It is obvious that a reduction in the number of Board of Commissioners and a subsequent redistricting would very possibly eliminate the number of minorities on the Washtenaw Board of Commissioners." .pdf file of WCDP resolution]

Lirones reported that she’d spoken with a current county commissioner who said that with fewer districts, the rural districts would be even larger geographically, making them harder to represent. She said she’d hate to see that consideration as the main driver of the redistricting decision. Noting that in the past, District 7 – which covers Pittsfield Township – had previously included parts of other townships, Lirones said the larger district added diversity of perspectives. In concluding her remarks, she said that cost savings and a better functioning board are reasons to have fewer districts.

Dan Benefiel told the commission he’s lived in Ypsilanti Township for nearly 20 years, but just recently got involved in politics. When he ran as a Republican candidate for county commissioner last year, he said he knocked on about 10,000 doors in District 5. [That district is currently represented by Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr.] People there have a lot of problems, Benefiel said, and they appreciate a close association with their commissioner. From his own association with county commissioners, he said he found them to be reputable individuals with concern for their constituents.

Benefiel said he didn’t want to impugn the reputation of anyone on the apportionment commission. He recalled that when he was in graduate school, he asked the chair of his department whether he would be evaluated objectively. The chair told him that everything was political. Since then, Benefiel said he’s learned that everything is political, but everything doesn’t have to be partisan. “Everyone in this county, everyone in this township has their eyes on what you do here,” he told the commission. He then asked the commission how they were selected to serve – what was the makeup of the commission based on? He also asked how the public can be assured that though the positions of the apportionment commissioners might be slightly political, they would not be partisan.

John Taylor of Dexter Township said he wanted to reiterate what he’d said at the previous public hearing – he hoped that the number of districts would stay the same, or increase slightly. Though there’s a lot to criticize about this country’s government, he said, one of the good things is that it’s representative. Some of that representation would be taken away if there were fewer commissioners, who would each have to represent a larger part of the population. Having more commissioners is one expense that the county should be willing to pay for, he said.

Three current Washtenaw County commissioners attended Saturday's public hearing on county redistricting. From left: Dan Smith (R-District 2), Kristin Judge (D-District 7), and Wes Prater (D-District 4).

Wes Prater, a current county commissioner representing District 4, said he didn’t want to repeat what he’d said at the previous public hearing, noting that most of the speakers there had expressed preference for keeping the same number of districts, or increasing them. Since then he’s talked to several of his constituents, and they basically have the same view, he said. Of the 15 or so people he’s talked to about it in the past week, only one has supported reducing the number.

Referring to Lirones’ point about cost, Prater – a fellow Democrat – said that the expense of county commissioners is only a small percentage of the overall county budget. Cutting costs isn’t a good reason to reduce the number of districts, he said, especially since that makes it more difficult for citizens. He said he thinks of himself as a working commissioner. Since the last public hearing, he’s received two requests from citizens that he’s responding to – increasing the size of a district will make it more difficult to help constituents.

Lirones then asked to respond to Prater’s comments. She described her interactions with county staff as phenomenal. She said she’s had direct contact with staff in the clerk’s office, the treasurer’s office, and several departments, and has never needed her county commissioner to act as an intermediary. [District 7 covers Pittsfield Township, and is represented on the county board by Democrat Kristin Judge, who attended Saturday's public hearing.]

The county board sets the budget, Lirones said, but beyond that it has few statutory duties. Washtenaw County has an excellent administrator and staff who are extremely accessible, she said. While commissioners can be helpful, she added, they provide very little of the service that residents get from the county.

John Taylor said he wanted to offer a bit of a rebuttal. Because county commissioners do set budgets, he said, they’re making decisions about spending priorities and which departments to fund. With more districts, the size of each district is smaller and commissioners are more accessible – that’s important, because funding decisions will directly affect the services in those districts, he said. “The more representation, the better.”

Prater then took the floor again, saying he wanted to give some examples of the work that commissioners do. He reported that he, commissioner Kristin Judge and former commissioner Jessica Ping had initiated the process of getting the county to sponsor a drug discount card for residents. They were motivated after learning from the county’s public health department that roughly 11% of residents don’t have health care and prescription drug coverage, he said. [The program, offered through CVS/Caremark, was the subject of a heated debate among commissioners, but ultimately won approval by the board in May 2010.]

There was no statutory requirement to push for a program like this, Prater said, but obviously there’s a certain segment of the community that can benefit from it. He said that he personally has handed out about 8,000 discount cards since the program was adopted, and he continues to get calls about it.

As another example, Prater cited a situation in Ypsilanti Township on Burns Street, where two registered sex offenders live. Some senior citizens in that area are “having a fit,” Prater said, and are having trouble finding out what’s going on – they’re frustrated and need help. He said they need someone to turn to, and it’s an appropriate role for the county commissioner to help them.

Timothy King thanked Prater for mentioning some of the problems that township residents are facing. He said there are a lot of issues in the township and county. On his street, the sewer system is collapsing – something needs to be done about the county’s infrastructure, King said, noting that he’s sure there are similar problems in other areas.

Bill Bigler of Ann Arbor expressed disappointment that no redistricting plans had been proposed yet – he was hoping to be able to respond to the proposals. He urged the commission to keep township splits to a minimum.

Commissioner Response to Public Hearing

All five of the apportionment commissioners addressed issues raised during the public hearing.

Brian Mackie began by responding to Dan Benefiel, saying that whether or not people trust the apportionment commission is “really your choice, isn’t it?” Mackie said that in his view, the county board typically works by consensus, and is not extremely political. In the same way, he said, “I think this (apportionment) group will be nonpolitical in their decisions.”

Mackie recalled that when they went through this process 10 years ago, they also held three public hearings that were well-attended. People expressed a lot of different viewpoints, ranging from a desire to have fewer than five districts to more than 21 – neither of those options were legal, he pointed out. One person wanted to return to having a board of supervisors, which also isn’t legal, Mackie noted. [Prior to 1969, counties in Michigan were governed by a board of supervisors made up of one representative from each township and two or more persons from each city in the county.]

At the time, one argument for increasing the number of districts had been that the county board provides training for serving in higher office, Mackie recalled. Noting that two current state representatives had recently served on the county board, Mackie said he nonetheless does not think the board should be viewed as a proving ground for politicians. [He was referring to former county commissioners Mark Ouimet and Jeff Irwin, who were elected last fall to serve as state representatives in District 52 and 53, respectively.]

Catherine McClary addressed the question of how members of the apportionment commission were selected. Membership is set by state statute, she noted. The county treasurer is required to serve, she said, “otherwise, I would never ever volunteer for this job.”

Commenting on the difference between a political and partisan process, McClary said she served on the county commission when it had been a more even Democrat/Republican split. [Currently, the 11-member board consists of eight Democrat and three Republican commissioners.] While issues can be contentious, McClary said, generally the tensions are geographical rather than political – between urban and rural districts, for example. That’s not necessarily the case for state or Congressional districts, she noted, where politics plays more of a role. But for county redistricting, with a premium placed on districts of roughly-equal populations, “we’re constrained by the numbers,” she said.

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, left, and county clerk Larry Kestenbaum at the April 16 apportionment commission public hearing. Kestenbaum chairs the commission.

Larry Kestenbaum recounted that he was a county commissioner 10 years ago, when redistricting reduced the number of seats from 15 to 11 – he decided not to run again, rather than compete against the other incumbent in that redrawn district. [That incumbent was Leah Gunn, who continues to serve on the county board.] Having served on a 15-member board, and having closely observed the 11-member board, he said, “there’s no question it works better at 11 than 15.” He allowed that part of the difference might be due to the personalities on the board.

There’s a lot of argument in favor of the status quo, Kestenbaum said, but that’s really not possible. Ann Arbor now accounts for about one-third of the county’s population, he noted, suggesting that the total number of districts should be divisible by three – creating possibly 9 districts, or 12. Kestenbaum said he’s putting together a plan for 12 districts that maintains the current districts roughly as they are now, but adds a new district for Scio Township. [Currently, parts of Scio Township are in several county board districts.] He said they’ll present specific plans at a later date – he didn’t think anyone had finished their proposals yet.

As for trusting the apportionment commission, Kestenbaum said that in addition to their roles on that group, all of them were elected by people in the county, and entrusted with other responsibilities. [The positions of clerk, prosecuting attorney and treasurer are elected countywide. The positions of Democratic and Republican party chairs are elected by their respective party membership.] If citizens of Washtenaw County trust them to carry out their other duties, he said, “I think it would follow that you trust us to do the redistricting.”

Kestenbaum also pointed out that in Washtenaw County, there’s no question of which party is in the majority. When redistricting is contentious, it’s usually because a change can cause a shift in political power – that’s not the case here, he said.

Cleveland Chandler spoke next, saying he was new to this process, but that he was working with Julia Roberts, the support staff hired for this project, to come up with a plan.

Echoing earlier comments of other commissioners, Mark Boonstra said none of them volunteered for this job – they were all conscripted. They hadn’t looked at any redistricting plans yet, but that would come soon, he said. Boonstra, the lone Republican on the commission, said there was no reason to think that there was inappropriate partisanship in the process.

Boonstra also commented that he had read something suggesting that he and Chandler had a disagreement at the previous public hearing on April 9. That’s not true at all, he said. The Democratic Party had recommended that the number of districts remain at 11, he said, but that was before they’d had a chance to look at the data. “I think we’re all on the same page and going in the same direction of trying to do this appropriately and within statutory requirements,” Boonstra said.

[A column by Joe Baublis, a member of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee who ran for county commissioner last year in District 11, was published on Friday, April 15 by Heritage Newspapers. In the column, Baublis describes the apportionment commission's April 9 public hearing in Pittsfield Township. In part, he writes: "The issue regarding the distinction between the fact finding of the Democrat Party chairman and the Republican Party chairman led to some heated debate. A member of the public asked how two men could look at the same facts and draw entirely different conclusions."

Draft minutes of that public hearing indicate that Chandler and Boonstra addressed the issue of population shifts and redistricting at the April 9 public hearing. According to draft minutes of that hearing, Chandler stated his preference for keeping the number of districts the same and not shifting boundaries, if there's not enough population shift to make a difference. Boonstra said they need to look at the data to see how the population changed within the current districts, and that he suspected there have been some changes.

The April 9 draft minutes indicate that Baublis, during public commentary at the end of the meeting, said he noticed a difference between the opinions of Boonstra and Chandler. Chandler responded by saying he has no problem working with Boonstra, and that the commission will work to come up with a consensus. According to the draft minutes, Boonstra again stated that he suspects there have been some population shifts, and that he didn't think Chandler was saying anything differently.]

Additional Public Commentary

An opportunity for additional public commentary was provided at the end of the meeting. Three people spoke.

Mary Lirones said she lives in Saline, which is part of one of the larger districts. [Saline is in District 3, represented by Republican commissioner Alicia Ping and covering the southwest portion of the county.] In talking with her friends and others, Lirones said, most people are amazed that they have a county commissioner, and certainly don’t know who that person is. None of them feel the need to contact their county commissioner, she said. Lirones said she’s in favor of reducing the number of districts, and certainly doesn’t want to see an increase.

Wes Prater commented on the advantages or disadvantages of having an even or odd number of districts. From his perspective, having an even number of commissioners isn’t a negative. If there are 20 commissioners, then you need support from 11 of them to get something passed, he noted. “I kind of like it,” he said. “It may be a bit weird, but I think it would work.”

Bill Emmerich of Ypsilanti Township, a member of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee who was a candidate for county commissioner last year in District 5, said he agreed with Prater. He also voiced support for reducing the number of districts.

Next Steps

Two additional meetings are scheduled: (1) a public hearing on Thursday, April 21 at 5:30 p.m. at Webster Township hall, 5665 Webster Church Road; and (2) on Thursday, April 28 at 5:30 p.m. at the county administration building’s lower-level conference room, 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor.

The apportionment commission is expected to present redistricting plans and possibly select one at the April 28 meeting, which will include time for public commentary.

Resources for designing a redistricting plan – including population data and a blank county map – are available on the apportionment commission’s website.

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary talks with county clerk Larry Kestenbaum at the March 31, 2011 apportionment commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

By law, the apportionment commission has five members: The county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum), county treasurer (Catherine McClary), county prosecuting attorney (Brian Mackie), and the chairs of both the county Republican and Democratic parties (Mark Boonstra and Cleveland Chandler). Aside from Boonstra, all members are Democrats. Their first order of business was to elect a chair – Kestenbaum was nominated and elected unanimously.

Kestenbaum had briefed the county board at its Feb. 3, 2011 working session, describing the process that unfolds every 10 years after block-by-block census data is released. There are currently 11 districts for the board – before 2001, there were 15. Though it’s legally possible to have as few as 5 districts or as many as 21, it seems unlikely – based on comments at Thursday’s meeting – that the number of districts in Washtenaw County will increase or decrease dramatically.

At their meeting, the apportionment commission approved the expenditure of $3,000 for software to help in developing a redistricting plan. They also picked dates for three meetings to get public input on the redistricting, as well as a possible final meeting date when they might make a decision on which redistricting plan to adopt – assuming that more than one plan is proposed.

The public hearings will be held in different parts of the county: (1) on Saturday, April 9 at 4 p.m. in the Pittsfield Township hall; (2) on Saturday, April 16 at 11 a.m. at a to-be-determined location on the west side of the county; and (3) on Thursday, April 21 at 5:30 p.m. at a to-be-determined location in Ypsilanti or Ypsilanti Township. Another commission meeting is set for Thursday, April 28 at 5:30 p.m. in Ann Arbor.

Housekeeping: Criteria, Software

Early in the meeting, Kestenbaum summarized the constitutional and statutory requirements for redistricting. [The statute that dictates the apportionment process for county boards is Act 261 of 1966.] Evaluation criteria include:

• Districts must be of substantially equal population. Specifically, each district’s population size must fall within the range of 94.05% to 105.95% of the “ideal” population. The “ideal” district population is calculated by dividing the county population by the number of districts. Washtenaw County’s population is 344,791, based on 2010 census data.
• Each district is represented by a single commissioner.
• All parts of a district must be contiguous.
• Districts should be as compact and in as much of a square shape as practical.
• No township or part of a township should be combined with a city or part of a city unless required to meet the population standard.
• Townships, villages and cities should be divided only if necessary to meet the population standard. The same approach applies to precincts.
• Districts should not be drawn to provide a partisan political advantage.

The commission then briefly reached a consensus to hold their meetings informally – not to operate by Robert’s Rules of Order. McClary clarified that votes would be taken and recorded. They agreed that any member could bring forward a redistricting plan, without requiring support from other commissioners.

Julia Roberts, a University of Michigan graduate student, has been hired as support staff for the apportionment commission. She's talking with Jim Dries, chief deputy county clerk.

Julia Roberts, a University of Michigan graduate student hired by the county as support staff for this project, told commissioners that the county’s census data has been entered into the GIS (geographic information system). A software program called DISTRICTSolv would be useful as they go through this process, she said. Among other features, the software allows you to drop-and-drag individual precincts into different districts, then it automatically recalculates the population within that district. However, it costs $2,500 for a seat license, plus $500 for technical support.

Kestenbaum noted that the county clerk’s budget could cover that cost. [In a follow-up phone interview with The Chronicle, he reported that roughly $20,000 is available for this kind of election-relate expense. There are excess funds in the budget due to lower-than-expected expenses – printing ballots turned out to cost less than was budgeted, for example – and from revenue from campaign finance fines. The money will be used to pay for the DISTRICTSolve software, Roberts' salary and any other expenses related to the redistricting process.]

Mackie asked about other software options. Roberts described a few other programs that she had tried, including GIS software by Esri, but she felt DISTRICTSolv was much better. She offered to do additional research, but commissioners indicated that wasn’t necessary. Kestenbaum said he would authorize the expenditure.

Later in the meeting, Barb Fuller – Pittsfield Township’s deputy supervisor – asked whether the software would be available to others who might want to put together a redistricting proposal. Roberts said it was a single-seat license, so only one person could use it. However, Kestenbaum told Fuller that all members of the commission have access to Roberts, and if someone wants to approach commissioners with a plan, they can help with that.

Kestenbaum also noted that software isn’t necessary to develop a plan – he said he’d done it himself 10 years ago, without using a software program. [At the time, Kestenbaum was a county commissioner, and did not serve on the apportionment commission.] The census data is online for anyone to access, he said.

Detailed census data for Michigan – a 30MB .zip file – is available to download at this link. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Roberts said the data should be extracted from the .zip file then converted into .csv by manually changing the filename extension. It can be downloaded into Microsoft Access and converted to an Excel spreadsheet. Anyone interested in ready-to-use data with detailed population numbers can contact Roberts at robertsj@ewashtenaw.org or 734-222-6730.]

Also during Thursday’s meeting, Roberts showed commissioners maps she had created as examples of different district configurations. She noted that she hadn’t been able to use the 2010 census data to generate these maps, so they did not reflect the current population figures. [In 2000, the county's population totaled 322,895. According to 2010 data, the population has grown to 344,791. A map of the county outlining the current 11 districts is online.]

Roberts said it appears that 6, 9, 12 or 15 would be the easiest options in terms of the possible number of districts. With 6 districts, the ideal population of each district would be 57,465 – a number reached by dividing 344,791 by 6. By comparison, with 15 districts, each district would have 22,986 residents.

[In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Roberts explained that 6, 9, 12 or 15 districts would be the easiest splits for the city of Ann Arbor – the largest municipality in the county, with a population of 113,934. Plans with 6, 9, 12, or 15 districts would easily separate Ann Arbor into 2, 3, 4 or 5 districts of equal population, she said. Currently, four of the county board's 11 districts are in Ann Arbor.]

At Thursday’s meeting, McClary posited that their goal should be to have the county’s districts as similar in population size as possible. But Boonstra noted that there are several competing factors to consider. Another major goal would be to not split townships, cities or precincts whenever possible, for example. Kestenbaum added that if it’s necessary to split a township, the split should be done along precinct boundaries.

McClary asked about the township “islands” that are located within the city of Ann Arbor – she clarified that those would be part of the districts that cover Ann Arbor. Kestenbaum recalled that at one point in Ingham County, a redistricting proposal had called for combining six separate township islands to form one county district, but a court had ruled against that approach, stating that the land within a district must be contiguous. Given the number of township islands in Ann Arbor, he said, it’s inevitable that some township residents will be represented by an Ann Arbor county commissioner.

[Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Wendy Rampson – head of the city's planning staff – reported that there are roughly 560 township properties located within the city. Most of the parcels are single- or two-family residential properties, or are vacant lots. The large majority are in Ann Arbor Township, followed by Scio Township, with a handful left in Pittsfield Township.]

Public Hearings: When, Where

Part of the roughly hour-long meeting was spent discussing how to gain public input. Kestenbaum proposed three public hearings. He noted that they had 60 days to agree on a redistricting plan – that timeline had started on Monday, March 21, when block-by-block census data was released.

Mark Boonstra, a local attorney and chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Party.

Boonstra clarified that the intent is to gather input from the public, not to get feedback on specific plans.

Kestenbaum said he felt that all five members of the apportionment commission should attend all the public hearings. They then discussed possible dates, trying to avoid conflicts with other government meetings.

After some discussion, a consensus was reached on this schedule for three public hearings and another commission meeting, though some locations haven’t been determined:

• Saturday, April 9 at 4 p.m. in the Pittsfield Township hall, 6201 W. Michigan Ave.
• Saturday, April 16 at 11 a.m. at a location to-be-determined on the west side of the county, possible in Chelsea or Scio Township.
• Thursday, April 21 at 5:30 p.m. at a location to-be-determined on the county’s east side, likely in Ypsilanti or Ypsilanti Township.
• Thursday, April 28 at 5:30 p.m. – another apportionment commission meeting, which will include opportunity for public commentary. The meeting, perhaps the final one in this redistricting process, will likely be held at the county building at 200 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Chandler noted that the 9th was convenient because the county Dems are holding an executive committee meeting at the Pittsfield Township hall on that day from 1-3 p.m. Kestenbaum told Boonstra – the only Republican on the apportionment committee – that they needed to make sure the county Republicans are notified of these public hearings, too. Kestenbaum also said the meetings would be noticed in accordance with the state’s Open Meetings Act.

How Many Districts?

After the meeting schedule was set, Boonstra asked other commissioners if they had any initial thoughts on how many districts the county should have.

Mackie stated that he wanted to see the population maps before forming an opinion, but that he wasn’t inclined to see the number of districts increase. Chandler said he wanted to keep 11 districts, as there are now.

Kestenbaum, as county clerk, said he represented the view of clerks in municipalities throughout the county, who are responsible for handling elections. He wanted to see a number that preserved, as much as possible, the boundaries between jurisdictions. He’d be willing to go up to 13 districts, he said, if that’s viable. He prefers odd numbers to avoid tie votes on the commission – even numbers can lead to tension and deadlock, Kestenbaum said, especially when there are fewer districts.

Mackie noted that some counties around the state do have an even number of districts. He indicated that there are likely no scenarios that would preserve every political boundary.

Brian Mackie, Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney.

The group also talked about the impact of the township “islands” located within the city of Ann Arbor. The islands have resulted from the city gradually annexing land over the years that formerly belonged to the townships of Ann Arbor and Pittsfield. Because not all township land has been annexed, however, some pockets of un-annexed land remain within the city.

“We have to deal with the reality of our geography,” Kestenbaum said, “so I personally am looking for something that works on the ground, without unnecessarily splitting up precincts and townships.”

Mackie also pointed out that any redistricting plan has to consider the federal Voting Rights Act, which outlaws discriminatory voting practices based on race. Kestenbaum observed that Washtenaw County is not required to get “preclearance” of its redistricting plan by the U.S. Justice Department. [The requirement applies to jurisdictions with a history of election-related racial discrimination. Townships in two Michigan counties – Buena Vista Township in Saginaw County and Clyde Township in Allegan County – do require Justice Dept. preclearance.]

Public Commentary

There were two official opportunities for public commentary, at the beginning and end of the meeting. However, the meeting was fairly informal and, on occasion, others who attended took part in the discussion.

Two members of the general public – LuAnne Bullington and Mike Merrick, both Ann Arbor residents – attended, as did some elected officials and staff of local governments in the county. They included Wes Prater, county commissioner (D-District 4); Dan Smith, county commissioner (R-District 2); Barb Fuller, Pittsfield Township deputy supervisor; and Jim Dries, chief deputy county clerk.

Merrick was the only one who spoke during the official time for public commentary, at the end of the meeting. He suggested that the commission use precinct maps as the easiest way to redraw the districts. He pointed out that the commission is not holding a public hearing in Ann Arbor, and some of the hearings elsewhere in the county might be difficult to reach via public transportation. Bullington interjected that Ann Arbor is the largest population center of the county, an argument for holding a hearing in the city.

Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party.

Kestenbaum noted that the commission’s next meeting will be held in Ann Arbor, but Merrick pointed out that by that time it will likely be at the conclusion of the process, when they’ll be ready to vote. Kestenbaum queried his fellow commissioners about whether they wanted to add another public hearing in Ann Arbor – there was no support for that idea. Julia Roberts, who’s serving as support staff for the commission, said she’d try to find sites for the public hearings that can be reached by using public transportation.

Prater noted that the county Republican and Democratic parties have been meeting at the Pittsfield Township hall for many years, and people don’t seem to have difficulty getting there, even though it’s not accessible by public transportation.

McClary observed that in addition to the public hearings, anyone can call the apportionment commissioners or submit comments in writing. Earlier in the meeting, she had summarized the content of three letters that the commission has already received: (1) from Aleks Kajstura, legal director of the Massachusetts-based Prison Policy Initiative, who urged the commission to take into account the prison population; (2) from Jackie Beaudry, the Ann Arbor city clerk, asking that jurisdictional boundaries be factored in to the redistricting, wherever feasible; and (3) from Nancy Hedberg, the Scio Township clerk, requesting that precincts not be split into different districts, whenever possible, because of the extra expense and potential confusion caused when precincts are split.

Hedberg’s letter described the difficulties encountered in Scio Township:

As you may know, Scio Township is currently represented by 5 different County Commissioners, and many of these districts do not match Precinct boundaries. You might well imagine how confusing this is for our constituents when they want to be in touch with those representing their interests at the County level.

More importantly, when election dates roll around, Township Clerks are faced with the difficulty of dealing with not only five different commission districts, but also splits in Michigan House districts, US Senator Districts, and US House districts. This past November we ordered 21 different ballot styles for 9 precincts within our township. Some of these splits covered only 3 voters in one precinct, and 18 voters in another. Consider that ballot orders are for a minimum of 50 ballots, and because of mandated ballot testing prior to the election, last November’s test ballots numbered at least 50+ for each ballot style. Not only is this confusing to the our constituents, it makes for confusion at the polling place on election day when election inspectors are responsible handing the voter the correct ballot if there are three from which to choose. My complaint is not so much how much extra work this makes for me or my election inspectors (we are competent, smart, hard-working people) but confusion and waste in government. Can’t we clean up our act at all levels?

Commission members present: Mark Boonstra, Washtenaw County Republic Party chair; Cleveland Chandler, Washtenaw County Democratic Party chair; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk; Brian Mackie, county prosecuting attorney; Catherine McClary, county treasurer.

Other government officials present: Wes Prater, county commissioner (D-District 4); Dan Smith, county commissioner (R-District 2); Barb Fuller, Pittsfield Township deputy supervisor; Jim Dries, chief deputy county clerk.

Next meeting: A public hearing on Saturday, April 9 at 4 p.m. in the Pittsfield Township hall, 6201 W. Michigan Ave.

Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, left, talks with county commissioners Leah Gunn and Dan Smith at the board's Feb. 3 working session. (Photos by the writer.)

When block-by-block data is released from the 2010 census next month, Kestenbaum will convene a five-member apportionment commission that will craft a plan to redraw district lines, based on population shifts. Currently there are 11 districts for the county board, including four in Ann Arbor.

For a county the size of Washtenaw, it’s possible to have as few as five districts, or as many as 21. Kestenbaum said he didn’t think it would be politically viable to talk about an increase in the number of commissioners. Maintaining the current number – or having fewer districts – would be the likely outcome, he said, but that’s a decision the apportionment commission will make, with public input.

Kestenbaum’s own political career has been influenced by redistricting. He served on the county board from 2000-2002, but decided not to run for reelection when redistricting landed him in the same district as fellow incumbent Democrat Leah Gunn. Instead, he ran for county clerk in 2004 and was elected to that position, winning re-election in 2008.

Prior to Kestenbaum’s presentation, the board heard from Roger Rayle during public commentary time. Rayle, a leader of Scio Residents for Safe Water, gave an update on the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, calling it “the gift that keeps on giving.”

Public Commentary: Pall-Gelman 1,4-Dioxane Plume

Roger Rayle, a resident of Scio Township, said he’d come to give the board an update on the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume. He has been tracking this issue for more than a decade.

[By way of brief background, in the 1960s Gelman Sciences, which manufactured medical filters and other microfiltration products, began pumping industrial wastewater into holding lagoons behind its factory at 600 Wagner Road in Scio Township. By 1985, tests showed some local residential wells were contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, a substance that's considered a carcinogen. In 1988, the state filed a lawsuit against the company to force a cleanup.

In 1997, Gelman Sciences was sold to Pall Corp., which is headquartered in East Hills, N.Y. The city of Ann Arbor filed a separate lawsuit in 2004. In 2007, Pall closed the plant on Wagner Road where the contamination originated. However, the groundwater treatment facility continues to operate there, as part of a court-ordered cleanup effort that's directed by the state Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (formerly the Dept. of Environmental Quality).]

Roger Rayle spoke to commissioners during public commentary at their Feb. 3 working session, giving an update on the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume.

On Thursday, Rayle told commissioners that “something bad is about to happen” – the state is about to approve a plan that 1.5 years ago wasn’t acceptable, he said. The plan would allow the company to reduce its cleanup efforts and expand the well prohibition zone – the area in which property owners are banned from using wells for drinking water. Properties in the zone are also required to attach deed restrictions related to the contamination. People who can’t use their wells are required to hook up to the city water and sewer system, Rayle said, and they incur a cost for that. They also might be required to pay city taxes, which are significantly higher than township taxes, he noted.

[City taxes would be paid only if the properties are annexed into the city of Ann Arbor. In a subsequent phone interview with The Chronicle, Wendy Rampson – head of Ann Arbor's planning staff – said that to date, the township properties affected by the plume, unless they are unbuilt land, have been annexed. That's because they've been located within a sewer service agreement area that Scio Township previously struck with the city. (Ann Arbor has similar agreements with Pittsfield and Ann Arbor townships.) If properties are located outside of that service agreement area, it's not necessarily the case that they'd be annexed in order to receive city water and sewer – Ann Arbor also sells those services to Scio Township, in some areas.]

At Thursday’s working session, Rayle said the real danger is the migration of the plume northward, possibly toward Barton Pond – a source of Ann Arbor’s drinking water. Why take that risk? he asked. There’s no reason, he added, other than the cleanup is inconvenient for the company.

[For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Concerns Raised over Dioxane Cleanup." Also, here's a link to a video of the May 27, 2009 public meeting held by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) about proposed changes to the cleanup plan.]

Public Commentary: Commissioner Response

Several commissioners thanked Rayle for the update, and for his ongoing work in tracking the situation. Leah Gunn said she remembers when Rayle would come to board meetings years ago with large paper maps showing the plume. He noted that Google Earth has helped his task considerably.

Gunn told him that the area’s state legislators need to be informed of the situation, though she added that they are no doubt aware of it already. Former county commissioner Jeff Irwin – a Democrat who now is the state representative for District 53, which covers Ann Arbor – would be the first person to contact, she said. Other local legislators to contact, Gunn said, are state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), Rep. Mark Ouimet (R-District 52, and a former county commissioner from Scio Township), and Rep. David Rutledge (D-District 54). Gunn urged residents to contact their state legislators and tell them it’s the wrong decision. The state needs to protect its citizens, she said.

Barbara Bergman asked whether the county’s website could link to Rayle’s online information. Rayle reported that the information is already available on the site for the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD), which is hosted by the county. CARD is a coalition of citizens and local governments – including the county – that’s focused on addressing the dioxane problems. [Yousef Rabhi, a new commissioner who is now chair of the board's working sessions, was recently appointed as the board's representative to CARD.] Additional information is on the Scio Residents for Safe Water website, Rayle said. The state also maintains a website related to the plume.

One problem, Rayle said, is that many people who are making these decisions don’t live in this area. He also noted that negotiations between the state and the company have been happening behind closed doors, and privately in the judge’s chambers. [The litigation is being handled by Judge Donald Shelton of the 22nd Circuit Court in Ann Arbor. Shelton is chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court, which includes the circuit court.]

Rayle doesn’t think that Shelton has seen the Google Earth mash-ups of the dioxane plume – it’s not clear why the state won’t introduce them to the court, he said, adding that it’s obvious why the company doesn’t want that information shown.

Kristin Judge asked whether it would be helpful for the board to pass a resolution opposing the deal. Rayle reported that unless the state and Pall reach an agreement, Shelton has ordered an evidentiary hearing for Feb. 14. Rayle said he doesn’t know why the state wouldn’t want the hearing – there hasn’t been one in several years. He suggested that if the board were to pass a resolution in support of an evidentiary hearing, that would be helpful. [The board's next regular meeting is Feb. 16 – two days after the possible hearing date.]

Judge asked Rayle to help them with details in crafting a resolution of support. She said the situation doesn’t affect her district – Judge represents District 7, in Pittsfield Township – but that she’s concerned about Ann Arbor’s water supply.

Rayle earlier had told commissioners that they should all be concerned: “If it doesn’t involve your district now, it will.”

County Redistricting: History, Process

Every 10 years, following completion of the U.S. Census, districts for the county board of commissioners are redrawn, as part of a broader redistricting that occurs at the local, state and federal levels. At Thursday’s working session for the county board, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum briefed commissioners about the county redistricting process – known as reapportionment – giving it historical context as well as outlining possible outcomes. Among other things, Kestenbaum, a Democrat, is also a political historian and creator of The Political Graveyard website.

County Redistricting: Historical Perspective

Kestenbaum spent much of his talk providing background about the county system of government, set against the larger stage of state and national events. Many settlers in Michigan came from New York, he said, and essentially transplanted the eastern state’s place names and government, among other things. Counties were divided into townships, and every township supervisor was a member of a board of supervisors, which handled countywide matters. At the time, it made sense that every township got one vote. Over time, as more urban areas developed, the state statute was changed to reflect that population shift, and cities got an increasing number of representatives on the board. By the time the board of supervisors system was discontinued, Ingham County’s board, for example, had an unwieldy 42 members, he said.

Malapportionment was common by the late 1800s, and was addressed with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 – part of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments. In relevant part:

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Apportionment also reflected rural/urban tensions, Kestenbaum said. The 1920 census found, for the first time, that the majority of Americans lived in urban areas. This was shocking news, he said, but there was no attempt to acknowledge the change by reapportioning districts. That finally happened after the 1930 census, when congressional districts were redrawn. In Michigan, members of the U.S. House of Representatives increased from 13 to 17 – all added in the Detroit area. [District 17 was later dissolved after the 1990 census results; District 16 was eliminated after the 2000 census.]

Nationwide, many states weren’t taking the reapportionment mandate seriously, Kestenbaum said. In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighed in with a ruling on the Baker v. Carr case, involving the Tennessee legislature. The ruling determined that the courts could intervene in reapportionment cases – the issue wasn’t a political question, but a judicial one – and that states must create districts with roughly equal populations. A subsequent 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims established the principle of one man, one vote. The same logic applied to state legislatures, Kestenbaum said, and in turn, the Michigan legislature began looking at the system of county boards of supervisors.

Michigan lawmakers created the current system of county apportionment with Act 261 of 1966. Though it was initially thrown out by the state supreme court as unconstitutional, Kestenbaum said, the U.S. Supreme Court later validated the concept that the principle applying to state and federal districts also applied at the local level. Districts were redrawn in 1968, and again after the 1970 census.

At that time, the principle of equal populations was taken very seriously, Kestenbaum said, which created districts with very ragged, complicated boundaries. That problem was ultimately addressed in the 1970s and early 1980s, resulting in what’s known as the “Apol rules” – criteria developed by Bernie Apol, who served as state elections from 1967-1980. The rules were based on the notion of not splitting precincts or jurisdictions, whenever possible.

A 1982 state supreme court decision – involving apportionment plans in Wayne and Ingham counties – affirmed those general principals. Kestenbaum provided a copy of the ruling to commissioners. An excerpt:

An apportionment plan for a county board of commissioners must be drawn both to preserve city and township boundary lines and to accord with other statutory apportionment guidelines to the extent possible without violating equal protection guarantees of the United States Constitution.

Those same principals still apply today, Kestenbaum said.

[A commentary written by Apol in 1987 and published by Public Sector Consultants Inc. provides a more detailed history of reapportionment, which included considerable litigation and political machinations. .pdf file of Apol's column]

County Redistricting: How It Works Today

For Washtenaw County’s upcoming redistricting, the process will begin when block-by-block census data is released, Kestenbaum told commissioners. That happens no later than April 1, but will likely happen sometime in March. At that point, Kestenbaum, as county clerk, will convene a five-member county apportionment commission. In addition to the clerk, members are the county treasurer (Catherine McClary), prosecuting attorney (Brian Mackie), county Democratic Party chair (Cleveland Chandler), and Republican Party chair (Mark Boonstra). [The clerk, treasurer and prosecuting attorney are all positions elected by the general public. Kestenbaum, McClary and Mackie are Democrats. Kestenbaum and McClary are former county commissioners.]

Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk, briefed county commissioners at their Feb. 3 working session on the upcoming redistricting process.

After the census data is released, the group has 60 days to adopt an apportionment plan. For a county the size of Washtenaw – counties with a population between 50,001 and 600,000 residents – by law, the number of commissioners can range from five to 21, Kestenbaum said. In Washtenaw, there are currently 11 county commissioners – a number that was set after the 2000 census. For the 10 years prior to that, there were 15. In the 1980s, there were nine commissioners.

The plan must determine the number of county commissioners, as well as the boundaries of each district, Kestenbaum said. To do this, they must follow two criteria: (1) preserve, as much as possible, the boundaries of cities, townships, villages and precincts; and (2) keep each district’s population size within the range of 94.05% to 105.95% of the “ideal” population. The “ideal” district population is calculated by dividing the county population by the number of districts. [The statute that dictates the apportionment process for county boards is Act 261 of 1966.]

If for some reason the commission doesn’t adopt a plan by the 60-day deadline, then anyone can submit a plan, and the commission must choose one of those. Legal challenges to the adopted plan go directly to the state court of appeals. In the past, the only challenges that have been entertained by the court are those related to district boundaries, not to the number of districts, assuming that those districts are within the legal range.

Kestenbaum said he didn’t think it would be politically viable to talk about an increase in the number of commissioners. He thought that having 5, 7, 9 or 11 districts would be the likely choices, noting that an uneven number is preferable.

McClary, he said, is interested in having as few commissioners as possible. But his feeling is that if there’s only five commissioners, those people would be very powerful. And because they’d be representing larger districts, he didn’t think the representation would be as strong – their districts would cover too much territory. Kestenbaum said his inclination is towards having more districts.

The electoral system is demanding on voters, Kestenbaum said. As an Ann Arbor resident, he said he votes on 97 different positions, everything from state supreme court justices to the local library board. Even though he’s county clerk, he said, he couldn’t name all those elected officials off the top of his head. Given the demands on voters, they deserve to have a system that’s as simple, straightforward and transparent as possible, he said. The more complicated it is, the more suspicious people become, he added. So there’s a public interest in the redistricting process.

It’s also important that the districts reflect the communities they represent. Kestenbaum noted that both districts he’s served as county commissioner – first in Ingham County, then in Washtenaw – were long and skinny, spanning areas that had nothing in common with each other. That also does a disservice to voters.

They’ll have a lot more information when the census data is released, he said, which will show if there have been any population shifts over the past 10 years. The census was conducted during a recession, so the U.S. Census Bureau was able to hire a higher caliber of worker, he said. Because of that, coupled with the fact that it was a short form to complete (the shortest form since 1790), “this is probably the best census we’ve had in a long time,” Kestenbaum said. He noted that Bob Groves, a University of Michigan professor, had overseen the process, as head of the census bureau. [Groves was appointed to the position in 2009 by President Barack Obama.]

Kestenbaum noted that this process of reapportionment will influence policy-making for the next 10 years. He said that though he’s friends with all of the commissioners, he’ll be setting politics and personalities aside. He doesn’t want anyone to feel indebted to him, nor does he seek to antagonize them. But it’s his duty to take part in this process, he said.

“I’m looking to create districts that work for the community,” Kestenbaum said, “and this is really a community decision.”

County Redistricting: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, asked what the board’s role should be in this process. Kestenbaum replied that he was sure they’d offer input, and he hoped to keep everyone informed via email and other means. All meetings of the apportionment commission are open to the public, he said.

Smith then asked what kind of public engagement would be involved. That will be up to the entire commission to decide, Kestenbaum said, but he expected they would have public hearings as they move through the process. However, he said he could already sense that there are differing opinions among commission members about how to handle that, so it was still unclear what they’ll ultimately do. For his part, Kestenbaum said he sees redistricting as a community decision, and public input is part of that.

Smith suggested that as the process progresses, they might schedule another working session to get an update from Kestenbaum.

Barbara Bergman said she is in favor of a larger board, or at the least keeping 11 commissioners. She reported that she has decided not to seek reelection in 2012, so she won’t be affected by the decision. “If we went back to 15, I’d be a very happy citizen,” she said.

Wes Prater told Kestenbaum that “you’re in the hot seat.” He clarified with Kestenbaum that the redistricting is based on population, not the number of registered voters. He asked whether the apportionment commission has met yet. No, said Kestenbaum, he hasn’t convened the commission. When he does, they’ll elect a chair and move forward. Kestenbaum said his preference is to start as early as possible, get maximum public input, and resolve the redistricting in a way that does not result in litigation.

Leah Gunn concluded the commissioners’ remarks by thanking Kestenbaum for not running against her, following the last redistricting. The changes put both of them – who were both incumbants – into the same district, and she recalled that Kestenbaum had called her to say he wouldn’t seek re-election. She said she subsequently supported him in his run for county clerk, and that now he’s “in a much better place.”

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge , Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next meeting: The board’s administrative briefing, to preview the Feb. 16 agenda, will be held on Wednesday, Feb. 9 at 5:30 p.m. in the offices of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. That meeting will be followed by a special meeting focused on the budget, from 6-9 p.m. The board’s next regular meeting is on Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [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 comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

This T-shirt was among several promotional items given to commissioners on Wednesday by local representatives of the 2010 Census.

Agenda items that were discussed in more detail at last week’s administrative briefing – including health screenings for refugees, funding for services to low-income families, and a bond refunding for Sylvan Township – were approved with no comment on Wednesday.

Also during the meeting, commissioners got an update on Census 2010 efforts from two representatives who are helping oversee the local count. Commissioner Conan Smith issued a statement of disclosure related to a potential conflict of interest, an advocate for the homeless urged the county to support a rotating outdoor shelter, and commissioners went into executive session to discuss a lawsuit settlement – possibly related to a recent Supreme Court action in the legal battle with the townships of Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti.

And ending several months of speculation, board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr. told The Chronicle that he plans to run for re-election as a commissioner – not as a candidate for state representative.

Census 2010

Toine Murphy and Tarik Green, two partnership specialists from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Detroit office, came to Wednesday’s meeting and gave a brief update on the upcoming count, which begins in less than a month. April 1 is “Census Day” – data collected should reflect the status of each household on that day. Murphy and Green are responsible for the count in this area, including a focus on students at the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University.

Murphy said Census 2010 will have only 10 questions – residents will get a mailing, then “ground troops” will be sent out to canvass the area as well, with the goal of getting as high a response rate as possible. He said there’s been an unprecedented awareness campaign to encourage citizens to respond. They’ll be setting up “Be Counted” centers to help count transient people, and will be working to provide help for people who are disabled, Murphy said.

Andrew Cluley of WEMU interviews Toine Murphy, a partnership specialist with the U.S. Census Bureau. To the right is Tarik Green, another partnership specialist.

The count is important to communities for several reasons, Murphy said. For one, the results will determine Congressional representation. Resources, such as federal grants, are also allocated based on census data.

The U.S. Census is still hiring in this area, Murphy said. Anyone interested in applying should call the jobs hotline at 866-861-2010.

Commissioner Conan Smith said he worked as a census-taker in 1990, describing it as a “great job.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the board, said he’d asked that Murphy and Green to give a presentation to the board so that everyone would be better informed about the process. He reiterated Murphy’s point about resource allocation, noting that if Washtenaw County residents aren’t counted accurately, “that is money we won’t get.”

Murphy and Green later handed out canvas bags to commissioners with census promotional items, including T-shirts, cups and other trinkets.

Smith Addresses Potential Conflict of Interest

Later this month, the board will be voting on an agreement with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit led by commissioner Conan Smith. The alliance will be managing the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which Washtenaw County is being asked to join. When this possibility arose late last year, some commissioners raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest for Smith. [See Chronicle coverage from a Nov. 24, 2009 administrative briefing and Dec. 2, 2009 county board meeting.]

To address that issue, Smith read a statement into the record at Wednesday’s board meeting. Here is his statement in its entirety:

Colleagues and Members of the Public: In two weeks, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners will vote on authorizing the administrator to sign a participation agreement with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance to secure membership in and support from the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office. The County’s financial contribution for this important membership and support is $76,690. To avoid the appearance of any impropriety, I intend to abstain from that vote.

I am the Executive Director of the Suburbs Alliance, a Michigan not-for-profit corporation, and as such the signatory authority on behalf of the organization for this agreement. While I will be the named party to this agreement, I have no pecuniary interest in it and receive no direct or indirect benefit from it.

Contracts of public servants with public entities are governed by P.A. 317 of 1968, which provides, in part, a procedure for a public servant to disclose any pecuniary interest he/she might have resulting from a contract between the entity that the public servant works for and the public body upon which the public servant serves. In the present case, I will not direct or indirectly benefit from the County’s membership in the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office; however, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to foster full public disclosure on this matter, I am following the procedure outlined by P.A. 317 of 1968. To that extent, the following should be noted:

• I am making this disclosure more than seven days before the issue is brought before the board for a vote;
• I intend to abstain from the vote on this issue; and
• I hope for a 2/3 majority of the board, as required by P.A. 317, to approve the agreement.

I am in full support of this process and anticipate our moving forward gracefully in the full view of the public.

Smith asked commissioners if they had any questions for him. There were none. [.pdf file of P.A. 317 of 1968: "Contracts of Public Services with Public Entities"]

What Got Approved?

Several items had been discussed at last week’s administrative briefing, and were approved by commissioners on Wednesday. They include:

• A health screening program for 50-100 refugees who settle in Washtenaw County each year. The screenings will be funded by the state Department of Community Health.
• Creation of a full-time management analyst position in the Office of Community Development, paid for by a federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant. The position will assist the office’s housing manager with land bank activities and will work with local nonprofit housing developers.
• Acceptance of a $597,568 federal grant for services to low-income families, whose income is at or below 125% of the local poverty level. The grant requires $239,577 in county matching funds and will be administered by the Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS) department.
• Acceptance of a $97,781 federal grant, also administrated through ETCS, for job training and employment services for about 90 people receiving food aid.
• Acceptance of a $1.553 million federal job training grant, plus $293,769 in state funds, for welfare recipients and at-risk workers. The services will be provided through ETCS.
• Authorization to allow the county treasurer to borrow up to $50 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all 80 taxing jurisdictions throughout the county. After March 1, these jurisdictions turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes.
• Approval of a $10.4 million bond refunding for Sylvan Township, allowing the township to restructure the debt it had incurred for building its water and wastewater systems.

Commissioners did not discuss these items on Wednesday. They had raised issues related to some of these topics at their Feb. 24 administrative briefing, which previews the agenda for the regular board meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Agenda: Health, Finance Issues"]

Public Commentary

Brian Nord spoke on behalf of Camp Take Notice and MISSION (Michigan Itinerant Shelter System: Interdependent Out of Necessity). He said the homeless camp, which is set up in a patch of land near an I-94 cloverleaf, has been threatened with eviction by the state police and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). Nord called the action callous and potentially life-threatening. Though there are open beds in the county’s rotating shelter system, Nord said that for a variety of reasons, that isn’t an option for many Camp Take Notice residents. [The rotating shelter, which operates during the winter month, is a partnership between the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and 15 local congregations. This year, the number of beds in the rotating shelter system was increased from 25 to 50 through emergency funding by the city of Ann Arbor and the county.]

If Camp Take Notice is disbanded, Nord said its residents will seek outdoor shelter elsewhere, in a place likely less accessible to those offering supportive services. The camp is a refuge, he said, something that many residents don’t find in traditional shelters.

Nord pointed out that the county is about halfway toward meeting its bricks-and mortar goal of having 500 beds for the homeless, as specified in the 2004 Blueprint to End Homelessness. He also noted that they’re six years into the 10-year plan. Allowing outdoor rotating shelters, with supportive services, may be a way of reaching that goal until the county emerges from its economic downturn.

Responding to Nord’s comments, commissioner Kristin Judge praised the efforts of MISSION, saying she’d met with them and found them to be a heartfelt group who really cared about the condition of the homeless. She asked for the administration to give the board an update on the status of the Blueprint to End Homelessness at some future meeting.

Lawsuit Settlement: Executive Session

The board went into executive session at the end of Wednesday’s meeting, citing the need to discuss a lawsuit settlement. Though the case was unspecified, an attorney for Dykema Gossett attended the meeting – that law firm has been representing the county in a legal dispute with the townships of Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti. The townships sued the county in 2006 over the cost of sheriff deputy patrols.

Last week, the state Supreme Court refused to reconsider a motion made by the townships to hear the case. [See Chronicle coverage: "Townships Lose Again in Deputy Patrol Case"] The county now plans to ask for a judgment to cover costs of providing patrols to the townships without a contract for most of 2006 – potentially around $2 million.

After returning from their closed session, the board took no action and immediately adjourned.

Present: Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Absent: Barbara Levin Bergman

Next board meeting: The next regular meeting is Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [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 comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

County administrator Bob Guenzel confers with Verna McDaniel, deputy administrator, during the March 3 board of commissioners meeting. McDaniel is in line to replace Guenzel in mid-May as the new county administrator.