It’s election day, so I’ll start this monthly milestone – our 26th, for those keeping score – by badgering you to tell your family, friends and neighbors to go vote. (As a Chronicle reader, you will need no reminder yourself, of course.)

George Packer (right foreground), a staff writer for The New Yorker, spoke to a recent workshop for nontraditional journalists at The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. (Observant Chronicle readers will spot me sitting at the back of the classroom.) (Photo by Jim Stem, courtesy of The Poynter Institute.)

Frankly, I’ll be glad to bid farewell to Election 2010. Regular Chronicle readers know that while we’re huge fans of good governance and the democratic process, our patience is pretty thin for typical horse-race coverage of elections – complete with endorsements and accusations trotted forth by candidates, which mainstream media then use to whip themselves into a breathless, panting herd.

I’ll also be glad to have elections behind us because the month leading up to Nov. 2 has been especially taxing for The Chronicle – in good ways. But I’m looking forward to a return to our baseline level of overwork. One reason for the extra effort relates to preparation for the first candidate forum ever hosted by The Chronicle. Held on Oct. 21 at Wines Elementary for Ward 5 city council candidates, the event took a nontraditional approach. Chronicle editor Dave Askins described our thinking behind the forum’s task-based format in a recent column. You can read about the forum itself in a separate report. And if you want to review The Chronicle’s election coverage, you can find a list of election-related articles here.

Another reason that the month was busier than usual relates to an out-of-state trip I made to The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. I was a visiting faculty member there at a workshop for nontraditional journalists. In this month’s column, I’d like to focus on the Poynter visit, with some observations about The Chronicle’s work, plus a national perspective based on remarks by George Packer of The New Yorker, who also spoke at Poynter.

What Is the Poynter Institute?

The Poynter Institute is a nonprofit founded in the mid-1970s by Nelson Poynter, who was owner of the St. Petersburg Times. His intent in founding the institute was twofold: 1) to start a training center that promoted journalistic excellence; and 2) to protect his newspaper from the threat of non-local ownership, particularly by Wall Street-owned corporations. (The institute holds controlling interest in the Times.)

Poynter died in 1978, but he would no doubt have been keen to observe the media “experiment” that’s been using Ann Arbor as a petri dish for a bit more than a year now. In 2009, the East Coast owners of The Ann Arbor News decided that closing the daily newspaper here – and launching a new, mostly online publication – was their best business option.

Why Does Poynter Care About Ann Arbor, or The Chronicle?

We launched The Chronicle in September 2008, about six months prior to the announcement that The News would be closed. The closing of The News brought national attention to Ann Arbor, and to our own publication. In fact, the changes in our media market drew Poynter’s Kelly McBride to Ann Arbor last year, as part of the institute’s Sense-Making project. The project – funded in part by the Ford Foundation – is researching and supporting work in the “Fifth Estate,” a term used to broadly describe nontraditional, new media ventures that are linked to digital technology. Kelly led a workshop in Ann Arbor a year ago, as well as a public forum that I attended on the changing media landscape in this town.

When Kelly contacted me earlier this year and extended an invitation to speak at Poynter’s October workshop for nontraditional journalists, I was excited to have the opportunity. I was honored because Poynter exemplifies the kind of work we’re trying to do: The institute describes itself as “dedicated to serving journalism in the interest of democracy.” I also knew that a lot was being asked of me. I’d attended a week-long seminar at Poynter several years ago, when I was business editor at The Ann Arbor News. Their workshops are an intense experience, and expectations from participants and faculty are high.

Kelly specifically asked me to share at Poynter The Chronicle’s experience in becoming a viable business venture. In preparing my talk and reviewing our efforts to raise revenue through advertising and voluntary subscriptions, I realized again how far we’ve come and how grateful I am to those who’ve supported us. I also understand very clearly how much work we have ahead to sustain The Chronicle. Sustainability will require evolving from a small operation that’s crucially dependent on its two principals – me and Chronicle editor Dave Askins – to a more robust enterprise that, we hope, will continue to thrive long after Dave and I are gone.

Poynter Participants

The 30 or so workshop participants were geographically diverse, coming from all across the country as well as from Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador. The group included several journalists who’d worked for mainstream media, just as I have. But many participants didn’t have training or experience in traditional newsrooms. Almost all were interested in starting their own ventures, or, in several cases, had already launched some kind of online publication or blog.

I learned a lot from the participants themselves – from their own experiences, observations and thoughtful questions – as well as from other visiting faculty. Shawn Williams, founder and publisher of Dallas South News, shared the remarkable story of building his online local news site, which just recently received its 501(c)3 nonprofit status. And Mayhill Fowler, who gained fame as a blogger for The Huffington Post, described how she broke news on the Obama campaign trail in 2008, despite obstacles encountered because she wasn’t running with the mainstream media pack. She’s gutsy.

I wasn’t able to stay for the entire week – work at The Chronicle beckoned me home – but the time I did spend at Poynter was, as I’d hoped, energizing and inspiring. In particular, a thought-provoking talk by George Packer, who writes for The New Yorker, caused me to reflect on The Chronicle’s own goals, and how those fit into what’s happening at the national level.

Some Thoughts from The New Yorker’s George Packer

Even before hearing Packer speak, I knew we shared at least two areas of common ground: A formative experience in the Peace Corps (his in Togo, mine in the Central African Republic), and a commitment to long-form journalism.

The author of several books and a play, Packer has been a staff writer for The New Yorker since 2003, and his articles regularly surpass the 10,000-word mark. In that context, The Chronicle’s 5,000-word pieces – which some readers find exhausting – seem like picture books.

He noted that The New Yorker is “pretty healthy” as a publication, in terms of revenue and circulation. (As an aside, the magazine is owned by Condé Nast, the higher-profile branch of a media conglomerate that includes the former Ann Arbor News and its newer iteration, AnnArbor.com.) Yet long-form journalism is not enjoying similar good health, Packer said. Every economic and technical trend is moving in the opposite direction, he observed. “It’s a battle, but I do continue to believe it’s an important form.”

Packer also spoke about the importance of news-gathering at the local level. As he’s traveled the country to report on stories for The New Yorker, he’s noticed a void where local news should be. People are less likely to experience their community through the lens of local reporting – instead, they get their news (and talking points) from national media. That has the effect of homogenizing the country, he contends, saying that “the thing that defines a community is its newspaper, or source of news.”

In fact, the decline of news sources was one of three factors Packer cited as contributing to the country’s overall decline. The other two, which you could argue are related, are political polarization and economic inequality. When people can’t even agree on a common set of facts, he said, that reflects an ailing society and an ailing democracy.

His comments resonated with me. The Chronicle’s obstinate commitment to in-depth, fact-based contextual reporting flies in the face of media trends, but is a commitment I believe is crucial to the health of our nation’s democracy. Without a reliable source for information about our local government – its actions, and the facts upon which those actions are based – we have no hope of having an informed citizenry, capable of intelligently interacting with our elected and appointed leaders from a position of strength.

I’ll share one more observation from Packer’s work that struck home. At one point he described some research he’d done for an article on the U.S. Senate. It’s a fascinating – though in many ways disturbing – look at how work gets done in Washington, as this very brief excerpt reveals:

The Senate is often referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from Oregon, said, “That is a phrase that I wince each time I hear it, because the amount of real deliberation, in terms of exchange of ideas, is so limited.” Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a Republican and a Democrat. “The memory I took with me was: ‘Wow, that’s unusual – there’s a conversation occurring in which they’re making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.’ And yet nobody else was in the chamber.”

I don’t know if influence on legislative behavior trickles up or down, but I’d say the Ann Arbor city council is more akin to this disheartening description of the Senate than it should be. While there are certainly words being spoken during the council meetings, it would be overly generous to describe their interactions as “deliberations.” Deliberations might occur, but generally not during their public meetings.

In contrast, meetings of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners often do include the kind of genuine discussion that I would expect from a legislative body. Of course there are all sorts of behind-the-scenes machinations, too – that’s to be expected. The difference is that commissioners, for the most part, are willing to respond to each other, to disagree and attempt to persuade, and to sort out at least some of that work in full view of the public. Even at their most awkward, those kind of meetings give you a much better sense of what public officials believe, and that’s a good thing.

The Chronicle’s work is very much grounded in the public meetings that we cover. We try to capture deliberations, when they happen, as best we can. One highlight of the Poynter workshop was some feedback about our tagline – “It’s like being there” – which one participant described as genius. I wouldn’t call it genius, but I would say it’s an accurate reflection of our intent, for better or worse.

I liked having some time away from Ann Arbor, but I like being here even more, doing the work of The Chronicle – even on election day.

About the writer: Mary Morgan is co-founder and publisher of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Word cloud analysis of the Obama UM commencement address. Image links to higher resolution file. Analysis done at http://www.wordle.net/

The Chronicle has transcribed the speech as delivered and provided some annotation, in part by providing section and sub-section headings that reflect the organizational structure of the president’s remarks.

The main themes were the role of government in our lives and the keys to preservation of democracy. One of those keys to the preservation of democracy, Obama told the graduates, is to “contribute part of your life to the life of this country.”

Introduction

[applause ~30 seconds] Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you, everybody, please be seated. I love you back! [responding to "I love you" from audience] It is great to be here in the Big House. [applause ~5 s.] And so may I say, Go Blue! [applause ~10 s.] I thought I would go for the cheap applause line to start things off.

[Note: Based on the text that the White House released of the speech to be delivered, the line was not impromptu, but could have been perceived as an ad lib, riffing on the fact that many of the speakers who preceded Obama at the podium went for the "Go Blue" applause line at the end of their speeches, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and student speaker Alex Marston.]

Good afternoon, President Coleman, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, parents, family and friends of the class of 2010. [applause] Congratulations on your graduation and thank you for allowing me the honor of being a part of it. [applause] Let me acknowledge your wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, your mayor John Hieftje [Obama misses pronunciation with a novel variation to The Chronicle, saying /Heef-jay/] and all the members of Congress who are here today. It is a privilege to be with you on this happy occasion.

America’s Voices

-

America’s Voices: How Obama Keeps in Touch

And you know, it’s nice to spend a little time outside of Washington. [applause] Now, don’t get me wrong, Washington is a beautiful city. [audience laughter] It’s very nice living above the store – you can’t beat the commute. [audience laughter ~5 s.] It’s just sometimes, all you hear in Washington is the clamor of politics. And all that noise can drown out the voices of the people who sent you there. So when I took office, I decided that each night I would read 10 letters, out of the tens of thousands that are sent to us by ordinary Americans every day. This is my modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place.

America’s Voices: Kindergartners

Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, some express anger. I’d say a good solid third call me an idiot, [audience laughter] which is how I know that I’m getting a good representative sample. [audience laughter, Obama also laughs, generating cheers] Some of the letters make you think, like the one I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia. Now, the teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. So one asked, How do you do your job? [audience laughter] Another asked, Do you work a lot? [audience laughter] Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard. [audience laughter] So clearly they were getting me mixed up with the other tall guy from Illinois. [audience laughter, followed by collective "aww" in response to a shot of a little kid on the stadium scoreboard screen] And one of my favorites was from a kid who wanted to know if I lived next to a volcano. [audience laughter] I’m still trying to piece the thought process on this. [Obama laughs] I love this letter.

[Note: Obama's reference to "the other tall guy from Illinois" is a reference to Abraham Lincoln.]

America’s Voices: Niceness

But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, Are people being nice? Are people being nice? Well, if you turn on the news today, or yesterday, or a week ago, or a month ago, particularly one of the cable channels, [audience laughter] you can see, [audience laughter] you can see why even a kindergartner would ask this question. [audience laughter] We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story, which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible.

Contentious Discourse

-

Contentious Discourse: Origins in Current Crisis

Now, some of this contentiousness can be attributed to the incredibly difficult moment in which we find ourselves as a nation. Fact is, when you leave here today, you will search for work in an economy that is still emerging from the worst crisis since The Great Depression. You live in a century where the speed with which jobs and industries move across the globe is forcing America to compete like never before. You will raise your children at a time when threats like terrorism and climate change aren’t confined within the borders of any one country. As our world grows smaller and more connected, you will live and work with more people who don’t look like you, or think like you, or come from where you do.

Contentious Discourse: Historical Context

I really enjoyed Alex’s remarks, because that’s a lot of change. [The allusion was to the student speaker at the commencement, Alex Marston, whose message focused on change, and the difficulties inherent in accepting change.] And all these changes and all these challenges, inevitably cause tension in the body politic. They make people worry about the future. And sometimes they get people riled up. But I think it’s important that we maintain some historic perspective. Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business. It’s always been a little less genteel during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. [audience laughter] Not subtle. [audience laughter] Opponents of Andrew Jackson often referred to his mother as a common prostitute, which seems a little over the top. [audience laughter, also from Obama] Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been accused of promoting socialism or worse. We’ve had arguments between politicians that have been settled with actual duels. There was even a caning once on the floor of the United States Senate, which I’m happy to say didn’t happen while I was there. [audience laughter] It was a few years before. [audience laughter, also from Obama]

[Note: The reference to "actual duels" is to the pistol duel in 1804 between Alexander Hamilton, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, and Aaron Burr, who was vice president at the time. Hamilton died of the wound he received at the duel. The reference to the Senate caning is to a physical attack by Congressman Preston Brooks on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856, in response to a speech that Sumner had delivered against the Fugitive Slave Act. The speech had insulted one of the authors of the act, Andrew Butler, who was a relative of Brooks.]

Contentious Discourse: The Nature of American Politics

The point is, politics has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. If you enter the arena you should expect to get roughed up. Moreover, democracy and a nation of more than 300 million people is inherently difficult. It’s always been noisy, and messy, contentious, complicated. We’ve been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the days the framers gathered in Philadelphia. We’ve battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted. As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture, to industry, to information, to technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity.

So before we get too depressed about the current state of our politics, let’s remember our history. The great debates of the past all stirred great passion. They all made somebody angry. And at least once led to a terrible war. What is amazing is that despite all the conflict, despite all its flaws and its frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any form of government on earth. [applause ~15 seconds] On the last day of the Constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked: Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy? And Franklin gave an answer that has been quoted for ages. He said: A republic, if you can keep it.

If you can keep it.

How to Preserve Democracy

Well, for more than 200 years we have kept it. Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived. Through depression and world war it has prevailed. Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women’s rights. It has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant? How will you keep it well in this century? I’m not here to offer some grand theory, or detailed policy prescription. But let me offer of few brief reflections, based on my own experiences, and the experiences of our country over the last two centuries.

Preserving Democracy: Adapt Role of Government to Changing World

First of all, American democracy has thrived, because we have recognized the need for a government that while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world. On the fourth panel of the Jefferson Memorial is a quote I remember reading to my daughters, during our first visit there. It says, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” A democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn’t have all the answers. We have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That’s a strand of our nation’s DNA.

But the other strand is the belief that there are some things that we can only do together, as one nation. And that our government must keep pace with the times. When America expanded from a few colonies to an entire continent and we needed a way to reach the Pacific, our government helped build the railroads. When we transitioned from an economy based on farms to one based on factories, and workers needed new skills and training, our nation set up a system of public high schools. When the markets crashed during The Depression, and people lost their life savings, our government put in place a set of rules and safeguards to make sure that such a crisis never happened again, and then put a safety net in place to make sure that our elders would never be as impoverished the way they had been. And because our markets and financial systems have evolved since then, we’re now putting in place new rules to safeguard and protect the American people.

Now this notion [applause ~ 10 s.], this notion, class, hasn’t always been partisan. It was the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. And he would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said the object of the government is a welfare of the people. And he is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, establish our national park system. [applause ~5 s.] Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched a massive government undertaking known as the interstate highway system.

Of course, there have always been those who oppose such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient, it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances that’s been true. And for many years we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility. At times we’ve neglected the role of parents, rather than government, in cultivating a child’s education. And sometimes regulations fail, sometimes the benefits don’t justify their costs.

But what troubles me is when I hear people saying, all of government is inherently bad. And one of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, “Keep your government hands out of my Medicare,” [audience laughter ~5 s.] which is essentially saying “Keep government out of my government-run health care plan.” Now, when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening, foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold our [applause ~ 5 s.] we the people hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government’s the police officers, who are protecting our communities, and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. [applause ~5 s.] Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures the mines adhere to safety standards, or that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university, [applause extending through "big and small"] a place that’s doing life-saving research, and catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small. And the truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades now, between more government and less government, it doesn’t really fit the times in which we live.

[Note: The reference to mine safety alludes to the April 5 explosion that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, W.Va., a mine owned by Massey Energy. The U.S. Justice Department is currently investigating that incident. The mention of oil spills refers to the ruptured oil well off the Louisiana coast, creating a massive spill that's projected to be a worse ecological disaster than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The well is owned by the oil company BP. Obama was expected to visit the region on Sunday.]

We know that too much government can stifle competition and deprive us of choice and burden us with debt. But we’ve also clearly seen the dangers of too little government. Like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly leads to the collapse of our entire economy. [applause ~5 s.] So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or a small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government. Because in an era of iPods and TiVo, where we have more choices than ever before, even though I can’t really work a lot of these things, [audience laughter] but I have 23-year-olds who do it for me, [audience laughter] government shouldn’t try to dictate our lives, but it should give you the tools you need to succeed.

Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot, an opportunity for every American who is willing to work hard. [applause ~10 s.] So, yes, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives. But remember, as you are asked to meet the challenges of our time, remember that the ability of us to adapt our government to the needs of the age has helped make our democracy work since its inception.

Preserving Democracy: Maintain Civility

Now the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we’re having, over government and healthcare and war and taxes, these are serious arguments. They should arouse people’s passions. And it’s important for everybody to join in the debate with all the vigor that the maintenance of a free people requires. But we can’t expect to solve our problems, if all we do is tear each other down. [applause smattering extending to "right-wing nut"] You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and their judgment, without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialists,” “Soviet-style takeover” and “fascists,” and “right-wing nut” [audience laughter] – that may grab headlines, but also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes. Now, we’ve seen this kind of politics in the past, it’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth. But it’s starting to creep into the center of our discourse.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they’ve signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. [audience laughter] The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation, it prevents learning. Since, after all, why should we listen to a fascist or a socialist or a right-wing nut? [audience laughter smattering] Or a left-wing nut? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences, to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture. And at its worst, it can send signals to the extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

So what can we do? As I found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of politics is not easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: Treat others as you would like to be treated. With courtesy and respect. [applause ~10 s.] But stability in this age also requires something more than just asking if we can’t just all get along. Today’s 24/7 echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.

It’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and deepen the political divides in this country.

But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from. Now this requires us to agree on a certain set of facts to debate from. That’s why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and the talking heads. [applause ~5 s.] That’s why we need an educated citizenry that values hard evidence and not just assertion. [applause ~5 s.] As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” [audience laughter]

Still, if you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of the New York Times, try glancing at the page of the Wall Street Journal, once in a while. If you are a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind might not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. [applause] It is essential for democracy. [applause ~5 s.]

So, too, is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people. I look out at this class and I realize for four years at Michigan you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars, professors and students. Don’t narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it.

If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with somebody who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your own race or ethnicity or religion, include people in your circle who have different backgrounds, life experiences. You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes. And in the process you will help to make this democracy work. [applause ~10 s.]

Preserving Democracy: Participate In It

Which brings me to the last ingredient of a functioning democracy, one that’s perhaps most basic. And it’s already been mentioned, and that is participation. Class of 2010, I understand that one effect of today’s poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life. If all you see when you turn on the TV is name-calling, if all you hear about is how special interests lobbying in partisanship prevented Washington from getting something done, then you might think to yourself, what’s the point of getting involved?

Here’s the point: When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s what powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of power, because none of us are there to speak up and stop them. Participation in public life doesn’t mean that you all have to run for public office, though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington. [audience laughter] But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can.

Stay informed. Write letters or make phone calls on behalf of an issue that you care about. If electoral politics isn’t your thing, continue the tradition that so many of you started here at Michigan, and find a way to serve your community and your country, an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

You know, it was 50 years ago that a young candidate for president came here to Michigan and delivered a speech that inspired one of the most successful service projects in American history. And as John F. Kennedy described the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps, he issued a challenge to the students who had assembled in Ann Arbor on that October night. On your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country, he said, will depend the answer whether a free society can compete. I think it can, he said.

This democracy we have is a precious thing. For all the arguments and all the doubts and all the cynicism that’s out there today, we should never forget that as Americans, we enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than citizens in any other nation on earth. [applause extending through "down"] We are free to speak our mind and worship as we please, we are free to choose our leaders, and criticize them if they let us down. We have a chance to get an education and work hard and give our children a better life.

None of this came easy. None of this was preordained. The men and women who sat in your chairs 10 years ago, and 50 years ago and 100 years ago, they made America possible through their toil and their endurance, their imagination and their faith. Their success and America’s success was never a given. There is no guarantee that the graduates who will sit in the same seats 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, or 100 years from now, will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that you do. You, too, will have to strive. You, too, will have to push the boundaries of what seems possible. For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain.

What is certain, what has always been certain, is the ability to shape the destiny. That is what makes us different. That is what sets us apart. That is what makes us Americans. Our ability at the end of the day to look past all our differences and all of our disagreements, and still forge a common future.

Conclusion: Calling Graduates to Action

And that task is now in your hands. As is the answer to the question posed at this university a half a century ago, about whether a free society can still compete. If you are willing, as past generations were willing, to contribute part of your life to the life of this country, then I, like President Kennedy, believe we can. Because I believe in you. Congratulations on your graduation 2010. May God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

Larcom Building 2nd floor bulletin board

Already on Wednesday of this past week the decision had been made to cancel city council’s Sunday caucus. I received a two-sentence email that morning – sent in equitable fashion to both The Chronicle and The Ann Arbor News by Mayor John Hieftje: “We have another light agenda for Monday night so caucus has been cancelled for this Sunday. Enjoy the evening.”

But the way I enjoy my evenings on the Sunday before a regular city council meeting is to attend caucus. You can’t cancel the thing I enjoy and then invite me to enjoy myself. Well, you can, actually, as Mayor Hieftje proved. But you can’t do it without causing me to ask some questions. Like: How was this decision made and who makes it?

Before diving into that, let me address a possible point of skepticism in readers’ minds. I do enjoy caucus. Really, I do.

Why I Love Caucus

Caucus has grown on me since I started attending around this time last year, and threatened councilmembers who were present: I would appear at every subsequent caucus if they did not “do the right thing” in passing the right kind of backyard chicken ordinance at their upcoming meeting. Early returns on the Chronicle survey suggest that some readers are sick of reading about backyard chickens, so I’ll simply note that I don’t think they did the right thing, and the rest is history. I don’t think I’ve missed a caucus since.

I’ve come to see caucus  as a social mingling, where you get to meet some people you might not otherwise have ever heard of, or you get to meet people face to face whose names you’ve only seen on email lists. Because I’m an early arriver, often I will be the first person that a first-time attendee at caucus will encounter – and frankly I enjoy being able to say whatever welcoming words I can come up with.

I like being the guy who knows how stuff works, who can explain it to you. But I might not have a welcoming effect on everybody.  So, yes, I have contemplated the possibility that a first caucus encounter consisting of a conversation with me could very well be the reason that a person never comes back. The fact of poor public attendance – with the exception of those occasions when citizens have organized to oppose a development in a particular neighborhood – is uncontroversial.

I’ve covered all the Sunday caucus meetings for The Chronicle since it launched in early September 2008. From a professional point of view, it’s a chance to get some questions answered: I know that there’ll be at least a couple of councilmembers there, and if nothing else, there’s a built-in opportunity to build up background information, even if the facts I gather don’t make it into an article.

Also from a professional point of view, caucus is one of the easier meetings to cover. We get credit with readers  for covering it as a public meeting, even though compared to some other meetings, caucus gatherings are much easier to write up. Relatively speaking, it’s “cheap” credit with our community of readers.

But none of these reasons really represent a compelling public interest in convening a caucus meeting, if councilmembers think it’s not a useful or not an essential exercise. And I’ve discovered that some don’t think it is, either in general or at least on specific occasions.

Caucus from Council’s View

I think it’s fair to take the characterization of caucus on the city of Ann Arbor website as reflective of an “official” policy on caucus.

Caucus meetings are optional [emphasis added] meetings of the mayor and members of council to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration. They may be partisan (the councilmembers of the same political party) or joint (councilmembers of all political parties) caucus meetings.

Caucus meetings are open to the public, and provide an opportunity for citizens to informally speak with councilmembers about items that are on the Council agenda.

Their optionality was a point that Mayor Hieftje stressed at the last caucus, pointing out to the public attending that many councilmembers had family obligations, but that such meetings were optional and not required in the way that regular council meetings were. The Chronicle recognizes the optionality of caucus by not reporting members who don’t attend as “absent.” [A question I'm following up on on a low-priority basis is to what extent regular council meetings are really "required" – if someone refused to go to any meetings, we might not re-elect them, but could we oust them before then?]

I understand from this description of caucus that it is primarily an opportunity for councilmembers themselves to discuss upcoming issues in a public setting, not necessarily those items that are on the very next meeting’s agenda.  Otherwise put, it’s an opportunity for councilmembers to talk in public with each other about the kind of emails and phone calls they’ve been receiving from constituents, how they’re approaching their information analysis on issues (like the budget), and an opportunity to educate each other on the minutia of government – like what all those rezoning items are about, or why they even need to vote on a contract to buy road salt.

It’s only a secondary function of caucus, as I understand the website’s description, that the public gets an opportunity to speak to councilmembers.

Yet it’s this secondary aspect of the caucus that seems to figure most prominently in everyone’s thinking about it, both for councilmembers and for the public. It’s rare that anyone from the public comes to caucus just to listen to councilmembers interact with each other. It’s almost always the case that members of the public are there to deliver a  roughly  three-minute oratory, even though there’s no time limit.

Some councilmembers place little value on caucus as a mechanism for receiving input from residents. For example, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) wrote in reply to an email query about caucus:

I find Caucus unproductive.  It has dissolved into an unfocused discussion about issues that are often not on the agenda and that can be better addressed with the individual member pursuing it with staff. There is minimal public participation; we’re lucky if ten people show up. I believe other Councilmembers have similar experiences, which is why attendance by Councilmembers has been so poor. In summary, I believe that Caucus is not – under any stretch of the imagination – a good vehicle for public involvement.

And Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), addressing the question of  the cancellation of a single occasion of caucus wrote:

We all email, we all phone, we all meet with essentially anyone who asks. If the public is interested in an issue, we hear about it. Caucus does play some role, but in my view its omission does not render us unaccessible or materially squelch public-council communication.

I tend to agree that if the sole function of caucus is to facilitate public-council communication then its omission on one occasion is not particularly consequential. For that matter, its complete eradication from the calendar  would not be particularly consequential. As Taylor points out, there are myriad ways that councilmembers are accessible. For example, I believe that councilmembers do make heavy use of email as an effective tool. Not just because Taylor says so, but because readers sometimes send me blind copies of messages they send to councilmembers and forward the replies they get back. Or they mention unsolicited that a councilmember has emailed them with some kind of response. For example, Carsten Hohnke has apparently taken an interest in a resident’s car-bike accident.

Deciding to Cancel

So if caucus is understood to be just one more way to receive input from the public, then it’s understandable why Mayor Hieftje would characterize it as an “easy decision” to cancel caucus for Sunday. Hieftje’s approach to the question was from the point of view of a member of the public who might show up expecting to be able to address a large collection of councilmembers and be disappointed that more had not attended.

If he knew that a large number of councilmembers would not be able to attend, Hieftje felt it was best (especially because of the light agenda) not to create a false expectation for attendees from the public that more than a few councilmembers would be present. He also stated that he thought it was a benefit to have councilmembers like Hohnke and Taylor now serving, because in the past council had not had many members with young children. And he felt it was appropriate to give them the evening off when there was an opportunity to do so. Hieftje added that he suspected that caucus stalwarts like Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) would appreciate a Sunday night off every once in a while.

In the case of this most recent cancellation, Taylor and Hohnke reported that they’d emailed the mayor (unsolicited) early in the week indicating they would not be able to attend due to family commitments. Anglin said that Hieftje had not inquired about his availability. Briere wrote: “I don’t know who he’s hearing from, or who is letting him know that attending Caucus – which is voluntary – isn’t a priority. However he’s polling, he isn’t asking us all, and he’s canceling it.”

Cheap Credit for Working Hard?

There are some Chronicle readers who will give the decision to cancel caucus a cynical analysis: Relieving  Hohnke and Taylor of what Hieftje called “the burden of expectation” of appearing at caucus could be a way to protect them from the criticism for their lack of appearance there – a reward for their support of the police-courts facility, and a way to prevent Briere and Anglin [who both opposed the police-courts facility] from reaping the credit for showing up to caucus, which they generally do without fail.

That’s an analysis that requires the exploration of the contents of other people’s minds, so it’s likely not productive. However,  I think if there’s a willingness to accommodate councilmembers with small children by canceling caucus, it’s worth noodling through what accommodations might be made for members of other demographics to facilitate their council service – students for example.

Based on my own observations over the last year, there is disappointment on the part of residents who show up to find only a few councilmembers present, and that disappointment is directed at those who aren’t there. Councilmembers who’ve shown up are given props just for being there. It’s “cheap” credit for working hard, but it’s available to any councilmember who wants to collect it.

I asked the mayor what his thoughts were on a policy that would cancel caucus only if there was no councilmember who was willing to guarantee they’d be there. I asked specifically if it’s not reasonable, through such a policy, for caucus stalwarts to be able to collect this “cheap” credit if they’re just willing to show up. Among the thoughts he offered along the way to an answer summarized as “I don’t know,” he mentioned the cost of the resource of opening council chambers for the meeting, as well as the suggestion that Briere and Anglin could reap the same credit by holding their own open office hours in a coffeehouse or some similar location.

Caucus Vision: Councilmembers Publicly Communicating with Each Other

I exchanged some emails with some former councilmembers about their recollections of Sunday caucus. I was struck by the mention of its value in interaction among councilmembers themselves. Wrote Jane Lumm, who served as a Republican in the  mid-1990s through the mid-2000s:

In reflecting back, I would say that the council caucus was a useful way to obtain further public and council [emphasis added] feedback on pending actions, and a way to expedite and gather our staff questions in advance of the council meeting. Compared to council meetings, caucus discussions amongst councilmembers tended, in general, to be less rigorous – but it was also not the “venue” for determining/persuading an outcome/result.

Going back to an era when Democrats felt like outsiders at the joint (Sunday) caucus, because there was a time when there was a Republican majority, Susan Greenberg, who served as a Democrat in the early 1980s, recalled:

It seems that the joint caucus developed when Ingrid [Sheldon] was mayor, but it may have started under Liz Brater. The few times I did go down when the joint caucus was in its early stages, I found it difficult to feel any part of the issue. The elected folks didn’t want to share their thoughts with the audience. I found that quite dissatisfying since often the public would like to be helpful, and can be most helpful when they know what the issues may be.

My takeaway from Greenberg’s comment is that it was frustrating for a Democratic councilmember that Republican members were reluctant to share their thoughts.

I think caucus could become a more useful tool if it were thought of primarily as a way for councilmembers share their thoughts and to do their work in a public way, and only secondarily as just  one more way to for councilmembers to receive comments from the public. It could become a real event.

Here’s what a caucus meeting template could be like:

• Proactive Summary of Resident Input: Councilmembers begin the meeting by demonstrating to the public they’ve been reading their email and listening to phone calls, by summarizing the concerns they’ve been hearing. If councilmembers prove that they already have a thorough understanding of  residents concerns about an issue, they not only score the public relations point, but  each resident perhaps would be less likely to feel like they’ve got to deliver their full 3-minute oratory. If no are residents there, at the very least The Chronicle will be there to write down the summary.
• Question Time: Residents asks questions of councilmembers in the way that reporters would at a press conference. But if someone wants to deliver a three-minute oratory, I don’t think anybody should stop them.
• Board and Commission Openings: Boards and commissions are a key way that Ann Arbor residents can participate in government, and the mechanics for appointment are well known: mayoral nomination followed by council approval. Less understood is how a name is selected for nomination. This could be the opportunity to illuminate that process by discussing any terms for boards or commissions that are expiring and generating some interest and publicity around the board or commission so that people interested in serving can be made aware of openings and how they can indicate their interest: “Has anybody asked Citizen A about serving on the XYZ commission?” “I don’t know, but she lives in my ward, so I’ll float it past her.”
• Agenda Run-Through: Every item of the Monday agenda gets at least ticked through, just to establish what the items are about. Everything. Including the most mundane sale of an easement. Probably an easement sale wouldn’t generate intense debate. But attached to that sale could be a policy change on what proceeds of land sales are used for. The fact that a vote is taken on live television doesn’t make a decision transparent. It needs at least some minimal commentary by somebody saying what it is. For example, at Sunday’s canceled caucus, some councilmember could have said: “This $5,000 for speed bumps comes from a neighborhood request. The initial plan didn’t have enough buy-in from neighbors, but the revised plan did. The relevant policies that apply are available on the web at the following URL.” That’s 10-seconds or less, and even added up over multiple agenda items, it’d be a minimal time investment.

Depending on how councilmembers approached this format for caucus, I think it could actually save them time and effort in preparation for meetings. At least some of the time that they already invest in preparation could be spent at caucus instead. Instead of councilmembers rotating responsibility for just showing up, they could rotate responsibility for the Caucus Agenda Run-Through. If some night Leigh Greden takes a turn doing the Agenda Run-Through, then on that occasion Christopher Taylor and everyone else’s burden of preparation is lessened.

I think such an approach to caucus might in itself increase public attendance.

But I think some effort on the part of council to promote and market caucus as an event would help even more.

• The “communications from council” section of a council meeting could be used to promote caucus: “I just want to encourage everyone watching to come down to caucus on Sunday, April 5, because I’m going to be there, and I’m going to do the Agenda Run-Through.”
• The GovDelivery email alert system could be used to promote caucus in the same way it’s used to promote other public events.
• Individual councilmembers’ emailed updates, like the one that Carsten Hohnke rolled out recently, could be used to promote attendance at caucus.
• Signage at city hall outside indicating to residents that caucus is convening that day, and that they’re actually in the right place.

I’ll be at the next caucus on April 5. Hope to see some unfamiliar faces there.

Laura Russello, executive director at Michigan Peaceworks, presented background on the collaboration between the nonprofit she leads and Veterans for Peace on the Iraq Water Project.

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (March 2, 2009): Whatever chance for controversy that might have been present in the Ann Arbor’s City Council meeting agenda on Monday evening was eschewed in favor of values statements. These expressions of values were reflected in many of the agenda items themselves. We’ve organized our account of the meeting in terms of values related to the following topics: water, the arts, land, energy, history, and democracy.

Ann Arbor Value: Water

Iraq Water Project (Clean Water): As a part of the section of the agenda called “Introductions” that starts every council meeting, Laura Russello, executive director at Michigan Peaceworks, presented background on the collaboration between the nonprofit she leads and Veterans for Peace, who joined together to work on the Iraq Water Project. As a result of the destruction of much of Iraq’s infrastructure during the Iraq war, Russello said that only 1 in 3 Iraqis have access to clean water. The goal of the project is to restore access to clean water. So far the national organization has raised $200,000 to repair six water treatment facilities in Iraq, Russello said.

She explained that the goal of Michigan Peaceworks is to help involve the entire community in the project led by Veterans for Peace so that it becomes a “human-to-human” issue. To that end, a variety of events had been organized, continued Russello, including a showing of the movie “Flow” at Michigan Theater, a rally on the University of Michigan campus, op-ed pieces written for the Ann Arbor News, with door-to-door canvassing planned.

Members had a poster depicting a water filter of the sort that the Iraq Water Project is raising money to send to Iraq. It consists of a sediment filter, followed by a carbon filter, with sterilization achieved through an ultraviolet bulb. About 30 of the units have been sent so far.

After presentations made during the “Introductions,” councilmembers sometimes ask questions to elicit more detail from the presenters. Mayor John Hiefte stated that he knew something about water filters and queried Russello about the filter’s processing rate. Eight gallons a minute, she said.

Russello asked for council’s support of the resolution on their agenda, saying that an endorsement from city council would help lend the local effort credibility.

Later, during council deliberations on the resolution, Tony Derezinski  thanked Michigan Peaceworks and Veterans for Peace from his perspective as “a veteran of an earlier unpopular war” and said that he was pleased to support it. Hieftje said he really appreciated the fact that they came and talked to him about the project, saying that it can have an immediate impact on people’s lives.

Outcome: The resolution, which featured a “resolved” clause commending Michigan Peaceworks and Veterans for Peace for their work on the Iraq Water Project, was passed unanimously.

Dreiseitl Project for Municipal Center (Storm Water): During public commentary reserved time at the beginning of the meeting, Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, spoke to the agenda item on  the professional services agreement with Herbert Dreiseitl to create a piece of public art for the new municipal building, which will integrate with the building’s storm water control system. The cost of the preliminary design is $77,000, which was on the agenda for authorization, with the project itself expected to cost around $700,000.

At a recent art commission meeting, some commissioners had expressed concern about some lack of support for the Dreiseitl project among the public. At its October 2008 meeting, there was some surprise expressed by commissioners about the large amount of money available to fund the project, as well as the rapid time line for the project’s selection. At a Sunday night council caucus in early February, Marcia Higgins had also expressed surprise at how much money had accumulated through the one-percent for art program, prompting her to wonder if a half-percent of all capital projects would be sufficient to meet the program’s goals.

Margaret Parker: Parker thanked the city council for its planning by putting the percent for art program in place and said that the Dreiseitl proposal was the first project to be funded through the program. She then gave some brief background on the mechanics of the funding, including the fact that funds from all capital projects that feed into the program can be pooled as long as they’re related to the same funding source. The funds need not be spent in the same year that they accumulate, she said, but they can’t be spend on anything other than public art.

She then began to walk council through the steps that led to the decision to commission Dreiseitl to create a storm water-based project for the new municipal center [which breaks ground in a few weeks, with preparations already underway around the Larcom Building.] First, she said, it was unanimously decided that the new municipal center was the place to focus time and funding. Second, the task force, consisting of many members of the community not on the art commission, had dtermined where in the municipal center the project would be sited. The site selected was the rain garden. With that, Parker’s time was up (three minutes is the time limit for public commentary), and she left the podium saying that she hoped council had read their “little packets and make the right decision.”

Councilmember Margie Teall said she was excited by the fact that Dreiseitl had agreed to do the project. Councilmember Carsten Hohnke said he’d seen a presentation when Dreiseitl was in Ann Arbor last year for the Huron River Watershed Council’s State of the Huron conference. He said it would bring storm water control out into the open and would thus be both educational as well as aesthetically pleasing art.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Art

State Funding: In voting to fund the design of Dreiseitl’s storm water-based art installation, council gave a thumbs up to both water and art. But it spent a fair chunk of time on the subject of just plain art. The topic was first mooted by Shary Brown during public commentary reserved time, who encouraged city council to pass the resolution on its agenda calling on Gov. Jennifer Granholm to maintain Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs funding at a level of $6.1 million in fiscal year 2010. The funding is in jeopardy as the state looks for ways to cover budget shortfalls.

Shary Brown: Brown introduced herself as director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, which will be 50 years old this summer. The organization also  sponsors the Townie Party preceding the fairs. She pointed out that the art fairs draw .5 million visitors to Ann Arbor each year, who spend $5 million on hotels, $25.3 million on dining and $48.7 million on shopping. It would be short-sighted, she said, for the state to cut funding to the arts.

Kenneth Fischer: Fischer introduced himself as president of the University Musical Society and a proud member of Tony Derezinski’s ward (Ward 2). He said he was there to support the resolution supporting arts funding. He drew a connection between state funding and federal funding, saying that when the federal government looks at state funding levels and and sees no money, it has a negative impact on the likelihood of federal funding. [The idea is that the feds prefer to allocate monies where there is matching local support.]

Fischer recounted how the Michigan Economic Development Corp. had used the 2006 visit from the Royal Skakespeare Co. to leverage the arts to entertain out-of-state CEOs. He cited an assessment by Mary Kramer of Crain’s Detroit Business, who had written that the MEDC had “hit a homerun” with its investment.

Councilmember Teall said she was happy to see the resolution come before council and that she hoped it helped change some minds in Lansing. Councilmember Hohnke encouraged the public to visit www.a2artsalliance.org and to look at the economic impact study to familiarize themselves with the impact of arts on the economy. It’s not direct, he allowed, but it’s significant.

Mayor Hieftje highlighted the language in the resolution, ticking through points like 2,600 jobs that are tied to the nonprofit arts sector and the $57 million in household income that the arts generate.

Councilmember Sandi Smith said that she did not envy Gov. Granholm’s position. She said that Ann Arbor was having difficulty, and in Lansing there would be a similar diffiulty. They’re going to have to go line by line, she said, and the arts seems easy to cut. She said it was ironic, because the state was giving money specifically for the arts through the Cool Cities program a few years ago. Continuing to fund the arts, she said, was going to help Michigan go forward.

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo urged everyone who cares to put in a call, letter or email. [The website mentioned by Hohnke above provides a form for contacting Governor Granholm.] Rapundalo suggested contacting state Senate majority leader Tom George, saying that there are those who see the benefit from continuing to fund the arts. He said we need to get behind those folks.

Councilmember Mike Anglin stated his support of the resolution. He mentioned that the University of Michigan was going to be re-opening its art museum and urged citizens to contact their legislators.

Councilmember Derezinski said he saw some wonderful people at Monday’s meeting in support of the arts, like Margaret Parker and  Ken Fischer, a “resident of my ward” – an allusion to Fischer’s earlier statment that he was a proud member of Derezinski’s ward, which drew a few chuckles. Derezinski stated that the arts were a wonderful component of Ann Arbor that makes it unique.

Councilmember Sabra Briere was fairly brief. When they send this resolution off to Lansing, she said, they should remember that bread feeds our body, and roses feed our soul. Art, she said, is the roses. Briere was kind enough to send along to the The Chronicle the full text of the poem to which her remark alluded, “Bread and Roses” by James Oppenheim, published December, 1911 in American Magazine:

As we come marching, marching in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing: “Bread and roses! Bread and roses!”

As we come marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women’s children, and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses!

As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for – but we fight for roses, too!

As we come marching, marching, we bring the greater days.
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler – ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life’s glories: Bread and roses! Bread and roses!

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Energy

Burning Coal: Council had on its agenda a resolution stating the city of Ann Arbor’s opposition to the continued burning of coal to generate electricity. The resolution was recommended by the city’s energy commission, and public commentary included remarks from the chair of that committee, Robert Black, who asked for council’s support of it.

Robert Black: Black introduced himself as the chair of Ann Arbor’s energy commission and advocated for the elimination of the burning of coal to generate electricity. He stressed that there was a certain urgency to the issue, and said that the council’s stand was needed because of Ann Arbor’s role as leader. Ann Arbor  is being watched, said Black.  He pointed out that Dave Konkle, until recently the energy coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, was in Washington D.C. working with international organizations on the issue. Black said that $20 billion goes out of the state to pay for energy.

Mayor Hieftje led off council deliberations by saying he believes that no more coal-fired plants should be built, and that there was no such thing as “clean coal.” The increased levels of mercury in Great Lakes fish, Hieftje said, were in large part due to the burning of coal. Given that Michigan has the 14th best wind resource in the country, Hieftje concluded that there was no need for the seven new coal-fired plants that were currently proposed.

Councilmember Briere noted briefly that the other side of burning coal is mining coal, which is itself a problem.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Earth Day, Earth Hour: Council considered a resolution endorsing Earth Hour, an initiative from the World Wildlife Fund that  asks all citizens, businesses, government agencies, and commercial and non-commercial establishments to turn off all non-essential lighting for one hour beginning at 8:30 p.m. on Sat., March 28, 2009.

Councilmember Smith noted that the time specified was local time, and that Earth Hour would move progressively around the world. She said that it would include streetlights on Main Street plus the lights in city hall.

Councilmember Briere noted that the more lights that go off, the better the chance to see the sky.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins was concerned about the practical side of turning street lights off.  “Are we turning them all off? Have merchants been made aware?” The answers seemed to be “No” and “Yes,” respectively.

Councilmember Hohnke talked about the Earth Hour effort reflecting a “global vote” for global climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. [The Chronicle learned later that Hohnke is pursuing the possibility, via city staff, of getting data from DTE to measure the impact of Earth Hour locally.]

Mayor Hieftje said that when the lights did get turned off on Main Street for Earth Hour, it would represent an even further reduction from the already small amounts of  energy used  by the LED lighting system.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Land

Greenbelt: The city’s Greenbelt program stems from a millage passed by voters in 2003, which raised funds to purchase additional parkland and to preserve land within the greenbelt district. A central strategy in land preservation is through the purchase of development rights on working family farms. Before Monday’s council meeting, around 750 acres had been protected through the Greenbelt program. Tom Partridge is one of the program’s critics. During his turns at public commentary, he often calls for the money that is spent on greenbelt acquisitions to be spent on other areas instead. With a purchase of development rights for 146 acres through the Greenbelt program on council’s agenda, Partridge rose to comment, and revealed that he has not changed his mind on the question.

Tom Partridge: Partridge reaffirmed the need to stimulate the economy in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and southeast Michigan by taking steps to access federal stimulus money and other public funds. He called for directing public money away from buying up farmland, instead putting it towards a transportation system. He also called for reform of the general practice that puts conditions on certain pools of funding, restricting their use on capital projects as opposed to operational expenses.

Councilmember Hohnke said that the acquisition on the agenda meant that more than 400 acres of operating farmland between Ann Arbor and Dexter had been preserved. He described the acquisition as “going to the sweetspot for the vision of the greenbelt, and emphasized that Ann Arbor taxpayers contribute less than 50% of the cost, with the remaining percentage coming from federal taxes and Webster Township.

Mayor Hieftje put the land acquisition in the context of local agriculture becoming increasingly important.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Plastic Bags: Council had on its agenda for the third time a proposed ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags by retail establishments – the bags with handles used to bag groceries, for example. One of the reasons for such a ban that has been cited by the proposed ordinance’s sole sponsor, Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, is the litter stemming from such bags. As partly a litter issue, we group it in the “Land” section of the meeting report.

Rapundalo moved for a postponement to June 1 to allow city staff to have a little more time to take in information and to have a discussion with retailers. Rapundalo asked Bryan Weinert, the solid-waste coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, to give an update on staff efforts. Weinert said that on March 22-23 staff would be meeting with retailers to get feedback on the already-drafted ordinance. He said there would be information on city’s website and a public information survey, acknowledging that there was some controversy surrounding the issue.  Weinert said that based on feedback from the public and merchants, staff would bring forward a recommendation. Weinert did not state what the range of possibilities for such a recommendation would be.

Outcome: Postponed for a third time by unanimous vote.

Solid Waste: As it relates to space in landfills, we include two resolutions regarding the new commercial recycling program in the section on “Land” values. The first of these resolutions was for a waste collection contract with Waste Management of Michigan not to exceed $900,000 per year, and the publication of the ordinance laying out the new franchise system for commercial recycling.

Councilmember Teall, who had worked on the development of the new commercial recycling program, called Bryan Weinert, the city’s solid-waste coordinator, to the podium. Weinert explained that the Waste Management contract addressed the refuse collection side of recycling.

Queried by Councilmember Higgins, Weinert said that to combine the recycling into a single stream where paper and other material was mixed together (for commercial or residential) would require upgrades to the materials recovery center, but that such an approach could eventually be rolled out and was a part of the solid waste plan.

Higgins said she’d received some calls from constituents concerned that moving to a national contract would push smaller operators out of business. Weinert said that an inventory of dumpsters was done and that there were only a very few dumpsters that were handled by anybody but the top three or four haulers. Higgins was given the assurance that businesses like 1-800-GOT-JUNK would continue to do what they do.

During deliberations on the ordinance, Councilmember Leigh Greden said that he thought it was amazing that in a fiscally challenging environment, the city was able to move forward with the commercial recycling initiative. He reiterated a sentiment he’d expressed at an earlier council meeting, when he said that the commercial recycling program was “one of the hallmark things we’ll do this year.” He concluded by saying, “This is an amazing feat.”

Mayor Hieftje said that the issue of low tipping fees in Michigan would need to be addressed, because that was what allowed Canada to dump garbage in Michigan cheaply.

Outcome: Unanimously passed.

R4C Zoning in the Central Area: The ordinance before council called for a direction to city planning staff to begin looking at zoning nonconformities in the central area of Ann Arbor and to work with the public to provide council with recommendations for potential ordinance changes to the residential districts within the the central area. It was brought for consideration by Councilmember Derezinski, who is council’s representative on the planning commission.

Councilmember Higgins expressed some concern that this new direction – together with the A2D2 initiative and the re-evaluation of area height and placement outside the central area –  meant that every piece of zoning legislation in the city was now under review. She wondered about the impact on staff and how the timing of the various initiatives would come together.

Jayne Miller, community area services director, said that for A2D2, there would be a council working session on Monday, March 9, 2009. At council’s March 16 meeting there would be a resolution to begin public process on area, height and placement outside the downtown, Miller said. Based on staff committments, Miller said she thought a committee could be assembled in the summer with work to begin in the fall.

For the work on area, height and placement, Mayor Hieftje announced that each ward needed a resident as a representative on the committee, and that councilmembers needed to identify a representative from their wards to join a collection of representatives from planning comission, city council, and commercial property owners. Hieftje asked councilmembers to move with haste, because the committee would be established at the next council meeting.

Outcome: Unanimously passed.

Ann Arbor Value: History

Ann Arbor District Library: The evening began with a presentation from the AADL about a historical collection of minutes from city council meetings dating from the early part of the 20th century. The Chronicle has already published a more detailed account of the historical online minutes project.

Women: In her communications to her council colleagues, Sabra Briere noted that March is Women’s History Month and briefly called their attention to two women: (i) Virginia Watts, who in 1878 was the first African-American woman to enroll at the University of Michigan, graduating in 1885, and (ii) Ella Bareis Prochnow of Ann Arbor, who in 1930 was the first woman in Michigan to own and manage an automobile dealership.

Ann Arbor Value: Democracy

Citizen Participation: On council’s agenda was a revision to the recently passed citizen participation ordinance, which requires developers to meet with residents in the vicinity of a proposed project early in the planning phase. The ordinance as originally passed allowed for no exceptions, and the revision called for exceptions to be granted for  single-family residential annexation and zoning petitions of less than two acres. During public commentary, Tom Partridge criticized what he saw as an attempt to curtail public participation.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge declared that he opposed the enactment of the ordinance and that he was opposed to all similar ordinances that curtailed public access. He said that it had been a theme of Hieftje’s administration to limit public commentary and to take up matters in closed-door sessions on subjects that should be laid out in detail. He called on council to enact an ethics policy for city government that addresses access by the public to public hearings. He said that public commentary should be possible without requesting the name, address, phone number and topic of speakers.

In the minimal deliberations on the revisions to the ordinance, Mayor Hieftje called the ordinance itself “revolutionary in Michigan,” saying that it goes a long way towards the goal of including the public. He stressed that the revision to the ordinance that night was  just a tweak.

Miscellaneous

Stadium Bridges: The topic of the safety of the Stadium Boulevard bridge over State Street warrants separate coverage, as opposed to relegation to a “Miscellaneous” section. It’s worth noting, however, that at council’s meeting, Sue McCormick, the city’s public services director, gave council an update on the situation with the bridge, which she said was being monitored closely. We hope to be able to provide more details as the city reaches what McCormick described as a “decision point” in the next 30 days about proceeding with a repair or waiting for funding to materialize for a complete reconstruction. For some limited coverage of the topic, see this previous Chronicle article on the bridge.

Michigan Inn: City attorney Stephen Postema announced that the former Michigan Inn on Jackson Road could see demolition this month.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. Note: Council will be holding a working session on March 9, 2009 at its usual time and location, to discuss the downtown plan and the A2D2 zoning, recently passed by planning commission. [confirm date]