A driver's license can be swiped for automatic lookup in the electronic pollbooks that will be deployed at eight precincts for the May 8 election. The voting process itself will take place using the usual paper ballots.

In eight of the city’s 37 precincts, election workers will deploy electronic pollbooks (EPBs) – information downloaded onto laptop computers (the night before the election) from the state’s qualified voter file. (The count of 37 precincts arises from the combination of several of the city’s usual 48 precincts for this local election.)

The laptops are supplied to the city of Ann Arbor by the state of Michigan through the Help America Vote Act. Michigan’s secretary of state’s office told The Chronicle in a phone interview that of Michigan’s roughly 1,500 different municipalities across Michigan about 800 will use EPBs in the May election, and more than 1,000 will use them in the August primaries. In 2009 40 different municipalities had tested the system.

Ann Arbor is piloting the EPBs in eight precincts this spring, with an eye toward expanding citywide by the November 2012 presidential election. Voters in the eight precincts won’t need to do anything different to prepare to vote. The voting itself won’t take place electronically. Voters will still fill in ovals on paper ballots. EPBs are simply for pollworkers to check in voters and perform record-keeping tasks at the precinct through voting day.

The eight precincts where EPBs will be deployed on May 8 are 1-8 (Skyline High School), 1-10 (Arrowwood), 2-5 (Ann Arbor Assembly of God), 2-7 (King Elementary School), 4-4 and 4-8 combined (Pioneer High School), 5-3 (Second Baptist Church), 5-6 (Eberwhite School), and 5-11 (Forsythe Middle School).

Voters will have mostly the same experience voting that they’ve always had. For example, they’ll still need to bring a photo ID. If that ID is in the form of a Michigan driver’s license, a voter might enjoy an incrementally faster check-in time at the polls. That’s because election workers will be able to scan a driver’s license for automatic lookup in the EPB.

The city clerk trained election inspectors in the use of EPBs at three sessions last week. The Chronicle attended the Thursday, April 26 session.

Overview

City clerk Jackie Beaudry led the training, with Howard Scheps assisting. Scheps then began by asking that everyone turn off all electronic devices.

Beaudry told election inspectors that their precinct was one of eight that will use electronic pollbooks (EPBs) in the upcoming May 8 election. By the Nov. 6, 2012 election, the entire city will have switched to the electronic system, she said.

The EPB is an electronic version of a paper pollbook. Armed with a laptop and special software, poll workers no longer record by hand each ballot they issue.

On software designed for elections, three specific duties are completed electronically:

1. List of voters: Poll workers have access to a list of voters in their precinct, along with a list of all registered voters of the city of Ann Arbor. (The list does not include surrounding townships or cities such as Saline.)
2. Remarks section: This section, to which a few blank pages are usually devoted at the end of the paper pollbook, is a place for poll workers to note any special cases or difficulties for the Board of Canvassers.
3. Statement of votes and ballot summary: The software includes a program that automatically generates a summary of how many ballots have been issued and to whom they have been issued.

A few items have remained in their paper form. For example, poll workers still receive a cover page that describes the election, jurisdiction, and their precinct. They also receive in paper form an equipment certificate and their oath of office. And a voter who’s ability to participate in the election is challenged – for residency requirements, for example – must still sign by hand a document attesting that they’re eligible to vote.

Once the polls have closed, election workers will print their final list of voters, remarks section, statement of votes and ballot summary at the clerk’s office.

Screen shot of electronic pollbook. The electronic pollbooks will help election workers with voter lookup and record keeping on election day. But voting will still take place with paper ballots.

Along with record-keeping during the voting process, the EPB also allows poll workers to swipe a driver’s license or other form of ID as a quicker way to find voter information. By swiping a card — as opposed to typing in a voter’s name — poll workers may save time. Beaudry allowed, however, that the feature may not actually be of much use in the predominantly student precincts, because student IDs aren’t recognized by the scanners.

Beaudry then reviewed the anticipated work flow on election day. First, a voter completes an Application to Vote and presents a form of picture ID. Then Inspector #1 verifies that the application matches the information on the ID. Inspector #2 verifies that the voter’s information provided on the Application to Vote is the same as what is in the EPB, and uses the EPB to produce the correct ballot number for Inspector #1 to issue.

What will be the same for poll workers? The morning of elections, they will still take the oath of office (on paper). At night all workers must sign a “Present at the Close of Polls” document, and two inspectors must sign while sealing the final ballot bag.

What will be different? Inspectors must begin the day by setting up their designated city-issued laptops. They are also required to save and back-up all information throughout the day (at least every 20 to 30 minutes).

The files and software are housed in a password-protected flash drive, which workers will keep in the laptop throughout the day. At the end of the day, workers must complete the electronic ballot summary and save it to the flash drive.

Workers are required to pick up their laptops the night before elections and return them to city hall after polls close.

Software Specifics

At that point, Beaudry began a demonstration of the software. Using a sample flash drive loaded onto her laptop, she opened the software.

The software that poll workers will use is password-protected. Poll workers are also prohibited from using the EPB laptops to connect to the Internet or any kind of wireless connection throughout the day. Beaudry cautioned that any use of the laptops to connect to the Internet would violate the city’s agreement with the state to use the electronic system – and on that basis the city’s funding from the state for the hardware could be revoked.

Beaudry also added that the software, because it is not associated with any Internet connection, is not really “interactive.” The list of voters is downloaded to the laptops from the state’s qualified voter file (QVF) the night before election day. No updates can occur throughout the day.

Screenshot excerpt from the center Voter Detail Screen. (Image links to larger file.)

When poll workers have successfully logged into the ballot-counting program, they must first check for the correct election and precinct — detailed at the top of the screen. The screen itself is divided vertically into thirds from left to right: Voter Search, Voter Details, List of Voters.

Voter Search is a way to look up voters. Searching or scanning an ID will generate a set of search results. Clicking on the name from the search result causes the voter’s name and address to appear in the Voter Details section in the middle third of the screen.

Along with each voter’s name and information, the search screen also indicates any special circumstances or details associated with that voter – with a question mark. A question mark may mean that the election worker needs to confirm the voter’s address; it may also signal that the voter has already registered by absentee ballot (in which case the worker must call the clerk’s office to clarify).

To execute any procedure with a voter selected from Voter Search — to issue a ballot, for example — poll workers click on “Lock this voter record” and, from a menu of choices, choose the desired procedure, like “Issue a ballot.”

The List of Voters, in the far right third of the screen, is a running tally of voters, used to summarize how many people have voted and how many ballots have been issued. This feature is similar to the running list that a poll worker would usually write by hand, and is simply a record of votes that day. It can’t be manually altered.

With the basics done, the rest of the demonstration was devoted to all the special cases — how to issue an envelope ballot, a challenged ballot, and how to reject or spoil a ballot. A spoiled ballot situation can arise, for example, if a voter realizes they filled in an oval incorrectly.

For example, to “spoil” such a ballot, the poll worker must find the voter again in Voter Search, click “Lock this voter” and click the command “Spoil this ballot.” From there, the worker can issue another regular ballot. Because the program automatically notes any special actions, there’s no need to write any special note to the Board of Canvassers.

If a poll worker accidentally chooses the wrong name in Voter Search (Jane Smith instead of John, for example) and issues the wrong ballot, there is also an “undo” button. At that point workers would be encouraged to write a remark detailing why they undid a specific action.

If a voter shows up who is registered in Ann Arbor but not at that precinct, a poll worker is supposed to urge the voter to go to the correct precinct. If the voter refuses, the worker can issue that an “envelope ballot” and enter the voter’s information into the system at that time. [Envelope ballots are reviewed by the city clerk after the election to determine if they should be allowed to count. If the person voted in the wrong precinct, then the ballot doesn't count.]

Other possible alternatives to a regular ballot include a “challenged ballot.” If a voter’s right to vote has been questioned by a poll challenger — say because they’re suspected of not meeting residency requirements — then workers must issue a “challenged ballot.” The EPB process is the same as for issuing a regular ballot, with the exception that a poll worker selects “challenged ballot” from the menu. The automatically-generated voter summary will indicate that the vote was challenged.

At the training session, Howard Scheps of the city clerk’s office also described what he called an “esoteric situation” – “rejecting” a ballot. This would occur if, for example, a voter walked around the polling place shouting who he was voting for, clearly telling everyone else to follow his choices. While Scheps says he has never seen it happen, rejecting a ballot is another easy choice under the menu of “Lock this voter record.” Workers are required to note why the ballot was rejected in the Remarks section.

At the close of the polls, a poll worker must enter the number of ballots voted that day – from the  voting machine tabulator, which automatically keeps track of the number of ballots inserted.

Most importantly, poll workers must make sure to save all updated versions of the ballot summary, remarks section, and running tally of voters. At that point, they must save everything to the flash drive and return the technology to city hall.

Election Day May 8, 2012

For a list of all candidates and ballot proposals anywhere in Washtenaw County on May 8, see the Washtenaw County clerk’s election website. To find a polling place in Ann Arbor, visit the Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County mapping service [requires Microsoft Silverlight].

Or to look yourself up to find where you’re registered to vote anywhere in Michigan and to view a sample ballot, visit the Michigan secretary of state’s website.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to support The Chronicle, too!

The two seats are currently held by Simone Lightfoot and Andy Thomas – who are both running for re-election, Washtenaw County clerk staff confirmed today.

Challenging the incumbents are: Albert Howard, Ahmar Iqbal, Patrick Leonard, and Larry Murphy. Voters will be able to select up to two out of the field of six, with the top two winning election to the board. Thomas, Murphy and Iqbal all attended an information session held for prospective candidates in June.

Lightfoot and Thomas were each initially appointed to the board to fill vacancies (in December 2009 and May 2010, respectively). They each retained their seats in an uncontested election in November of 2010, and are currently serving one-year terms expiring at the end of this year.

All candidates are invited to a meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 23, at 5:30 p.m. at the Balas Administration building in order to meet with administrators to learn about the district.

Ward maps showing incumbents relative strength across precincts. The circles represent results of the absent voter count boards for each ward. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

In Ward 2, Stephen Rapundalo received 57% of the vote: 573 votes, compared with Tim Hull’s 420.

In Ward 3, Stephen Kunselman received 59% of the vote: 637 votes, compared to 389 for Ingrid Ault and 55 for Marwan Issa.

And in Ward 5, Mike Anglin received 66% of the votes: 1,088 votes, compared with Neal Elyakin’s 562.

Turnout was down in every ward compared to previous odd-year Democratic primaries. In Ward 2 only 6.39% of registered voters turned in a ballot. In Ward 3, only 8.84% of those who are registered actually voted. And in Ward 5, registered voters had a turnout of only 8.71%.

In the city’s other two wards, no Democratic primary was contested. No ward had a contested Republican primary.

In Ward 2, for the Nov. 8, 2011 general election, Rapundalo does not currently face a challenger. The deadline for an independent candidate to file is Aug. 15.

In Ward 3, Kunselman’s name will appear on the ballot along with Republican David Parker. In Ward 5, Mike Anglin will face Republican Stuart Berry.

In Ward 4, which did not require a primary election, incumbent Democrat Marcia Higgins will face Republican Eric Scheie in November. In Ward 1, incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere faced no primary challenger and will face no challenger on the ballot in November unless an independent files qualifying petitions by Aug. 15.

Ward 2: Rapundalo

Percentage-wise, Tim Hull had the strongest showing of challengers in the three contested wards, with 43% of the vote in Ward 2. Hull managed to carry precinct 2-5, with two-thirds of the vote. That precinct is home to Huron Hills golf course. Hull’s strong showing there suggests that voters may still be skeptical of Rapundalo’s commitment to preserving Huron Hills as a golf course.

For a table of results in Ward 2 by precinct, visit the Washtenaw County clerk’s website. Map A below shows Rapundalo’s relative strength by precinct. A darker (or “brighter”) shade of green indicates a higher percentage of the vote. Lighter (or “dimmer”) shades indicate a lower percentage of votes received by Rapundalo. The map shows that Rapundalo was strongest in the northern two precincts of the ward, which is consistent with his showing in past elections.

The circle indicates Rapundalo’s relative strength in the absent voter count boards, which were tallied separately from all in-person ballots. [Google Map of Ward 2 2011 Democratic Primary Results]

Map A. Ward 2 2011 Democratic primary results. The pushpin indicates Rapundalo's home. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

For a look at Rapundalo’s historical performance in Ward 2 city council races, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Elections Past: Voting Patterns.”

Turnout in the last contested Democratic primary – a 2005 race between Rapundalo and Eugene Kang – was 7.35% (1,251 of 17,028 registered voters), compared with 6.39% this year (997 of 15,611 registered voters).

Rapundalo will be unopposed on the November ballot for Ward 2, unless an independent files by the Aug. 15 deadline.

Ward 3: Kunselman

In the Ward 3, three-way race, challenger Marwan Issa’s 5% of the total had relatively little impact on the overall outcome. That meant that Stephen Kunselman was able to record the largest statistical victory in his city council election career. His 59% gave him a majority of votes for the first time. In his previous two three-way race victories, the relatively even strength of the field had resulted in a victory for Kunselman, but with less than 50% of the vote.

For a table of results in Ward 3 by precinct, visit the Washtenaw County clerk’s website. Map B below shows Kunselman’s relative strength by precinct. A darker (or “brighter”) shade of purple indicates a higher percentage of the vote. Lighter (or “dimmer”) shades indicate a lower percentage of votes received by Kunselman.

The map shows that Kunselman was strong in every precinct of the ward, except for 3-3, which challenger Ingrid Ault was able to carry. That  is consistent with Kunselman’s showing in past elections.

The circle indicates Kunselman’s relative strength in the absent voter count boards, which were tallied separately from all in-person ballots. [ Google Map of Ward 3 2011 Democratic primary results]

Map B. Ward 3 2011 Democratic primary results. The pushpin indicates Kunselman's home. (Image links to higher resolution file)

For a look at Kunselman’s historical performance in Ward 3 city council races, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Elections Past: Voting Patterns.”

Turnout in the last contested Democratic primary – the 2009 race between Kunselman, LuAnne Bullington and Leigh Greden – was 11.70% (1,415 of 12,093 registered voters), compared with 8.84% this year (1,081 of 12,223 registered voters).

Kunselman will face Republican David Parker on the November ballot for Ward 3.

Ward 5: Anglin

Mike Anglin was the strongest of the incumbents in the three wards, with 66% of the vote.

For a table of results in Ward 5 by precinct, visit the Washtenaw County clerk’s website. Map C below shows Anglin’s relative strength by precinct. A darker (or “brighter”) shade of blue indicates a higher percentage of the vote. Lighter (or “dimmer”) shades indicate a lower percentage of votes received by Anglin.

The map shows that Anglin was strong in every precinct of the ward, except for 5-7, which challenger Neal Elyakin was able to carry with 62.1% of the vote. That margin was diluted by the fact that only 29 people voted in the precinct. Anglin’s performance in 5-7 has shown an interesting pattern. In 2007, it was one of his weakest precincts, flipping to one of his strongest in 2009, and back to his weakest precinct in this year’s contest.

The circle indicates Anglin’s relative strength in the absent voter count boards, which were tallied separately from all in-person ballots. [Google Map of Ward 5 2011 Democratic primary results]

Map C. Ward 5 2011 Democratic primary results. The pushpin indicates the location of Anglin's home. (Image links to higher resolution file)

For a look at Anglin’s historical performance in Ward 5 city council races, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Elections Past: Voting Patterns.”

Turnout in the last contested Democratic primary, the 2009 race between Anglin and Scott Rosencrans, was 10.84% (2010 of 18,538 registered voters), compared with 8.71% this year (1,652 of 18,963 registered voters).

Anglin will face Republican Stuart Berry on the November ballot for Ward 5.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of elections to public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Yellow cross-hatched areas reflect proposed portions of the city that are now in Ward 1, but would become part of some other ward instead. (Image links to high resolution .pdf file of all affected areas.)

Of course, the city is not the only local unit of government faced with the task of evaluating election boundaries every 10 years. For Washtenaw County, the board of commissioner districts were redrawn after a series of public meetings held by the county’s reapportionment committee and covered by The Chronicle. That initiative resulted in a reduction of the number of county board seats from 11 to nine. ["County Board Loses Two Seats in Redistricting"]

Although it is not the city election commission’s assigned responsibility to handle city ward reapportionment, the commission met on Friday, June 10, 2011 and worked out recommended changes. The changes essentially pare down Ward 1, which over the last 10 years has grown in population relative to other wards.

By comparison to the new county districts, the proposed new ward boundaries for the city of Ann Arbor reflect fairly minor changes. For one thing, the number of wards has not changed – the city charter requires exactly five wards, and further stipulates that they must be roughly pie-shaped, with the slices of pie meeting near the center of the city. The charter also stipulates that the ward boundaries be changed as little as possible from the existing lines. I don’t have a problem with the proposed changes themselves.

However, the proposal before the city council on July 5 is that the ward boundaries should be effective after the Aug. 2 primary election, but before the general election on Nov. 8. Changing the boundaries between the primary and the general election is just bizarre.

Sticking with the same rules from the beginning of the election process to the end – that’s as American as apple-pie-shaped wedges.

Why Change the Boundaries at All?

The ward boundaries of the city are supposed to be maintained with roughly an equal number residents. The relevant provision of the Ann Arbor city charter reads:

Section 1.3 (3) Each of the five wards should be maintained with a population as nearly equal to the population of the other four wards, as is practically possible, on the basis of the last preceding federal decennial census.

The city election commission isn’t assigned the responsibility of managing city ward reapportionment. But the commission – consisting of the city clerk (Jackie Beaudry), the city attorney (Stephen Postema), and the head of public safety (Barnett Jones) – met on Friday, June 10, 2011 and worked out recommended changes to pare down Ward 1. Over the last 10 years, Ward 1 has grown in population relative to other wards. In the proposed reapportionment, a total of 1,821 city residents recorded in the 2010 census were reassigned from Ward 1 to other wards. Some other minor changes were proposed as well.

It was in the spirit of bringing all five wards as close as possible to the 22,787 people per ward that a perfect division of the city’s 113,934 residents would yield.

In terms of arithmetic, the proposal pretty well nails it:

          Assigned      Deviation   Deviation
          Population    Number      Percent

Ward 1    22,795          +8        +0.04
Ward 2    22,739         -48        -0.21
Ward 3    22,919        +132        +0.58
Ward 4    22,760         -27        -0.12
Ward 5    22,721         -66        -0.29

-
And the changes make good sense. Under the proposal, an odd bump-out from Ward 4 into Ward 3 was removed so that the boundary between those two wards is aligned to Packard Street for a long stretch. That’s consistent with the charter’s directive to make the borders align to “natural boundaries.” In this case, that natural boundary is a major street.

Another change that conforms to the same directive is to move the southern boundary of Ward 1 – thus the northern boundaries of Ward 3 and Ward 4 – to align with South University Avenue, instead of Madison Street. South University is a major street, while Madison is not.

There is room for discussion over some of the other changes. In fact, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere has proposed a tweak involving the boundary between Ward 1 and Ward 5. But I don’t think there are any proposed changes that could be called grossly unfair or unjust.

The timing for the proposed changes, however, is pretty flaky.

Required Boundary Change Between Primary and General??

Why would anyone even think to change the city ward boundaries between the primary and general elections for city council? The apparent thinking on the part of the city attorney’s office is that unless this change is made before the general election, the city would be in violation of the state of Michigan’s Home Rule Cities Act 279 of 1908 [emphasis added]:

117.27a Apportionment of wards; definitions.
…
(4) In each such city subject to the provisions of this section the local legislative body, not later than December 1, 1967, shall apportion the wards of the city in accord with this section. In subsequent years, the local legislative body, prior to the next general municipal election occurring not earlier than 4 months following the date of the official release of the census figures of each United States decennial census, shall apportion the wards of the city in accord with this section.

The census figures were released this year for Michigan on March 21, 2011, so the general election on Nov. 8, 2011 meets the criteria set forth in the Home Rule Cities Act.

But the timing stipulated in the state statute did not necessitate that the boundaries be changed between the primary and the general election. The question for the city of Ann Arbor on March 21, when the census data became available, was this: Is there enough time to complete the reapportionment of wards to enact new boundaries before the filing deadline for the primary?

Bear in mind that the enactment of new boundaries is an ordinance change, and as such would require two readings before the city council, with approval at each reading. The filing deadline for candidates in the primary elections was May 10. In the interval between March 21 and May 10, the city council had three scheduled meetings. So I would contend that the window of opportunity was completely adequate for enacting ward boundaries before the primary election.

I base that contention in part on the already noted constraints on how wards can be drawn in the city of Ann Arbor. Those constraints  are fairly severe – ward boundaries are supposed to stay as close to the previous lines as possible and they have to maintain a roughly pie shape. So it’s not like a great deal of number crunching and sophisticated mathematical modeling of myriad alternatives and permutations is required.

However, the city of Ann Arbor has now missed the opportunity to satisfy the state statute by enacting the boundary changes before the primary election filing deadline. And wishing really hard that the changes had been enacted sooner won’t help much.

So why not meet the statutory requirement by just changing the boundaries of the wards now, before the primary elections take place?

Why Not Just Change the Boundaries Now?

One possibility – which is not being proposed by anyone – would be to meet the state statutory requirement by changing the boundaries now, before the primary elections take place, but after the filing deadline for candidates in the primaries. That would eliminate the objection to changing boundaries between the primary and the general elections.

But it would be absurd to suggest changing the ward boundaries for an election after the filing deadline for candidates has passed. Why? It’s because that could easily lead to a scenario where someone who lives in the old (current) Ward 1 might well have decided not to run for a seat on the city council because they did not think they could defeat the incumbent Sabra Briere. If that person were reassigned to the new (proposed) Ward 2, they might well have concluded that Stephen Rapundalo is vulnerable (given his problems with a self-described “misrepresentation” made at the council table during the last year), and decided to contest Rapundalo’s Ward 2 seat.

Further, candidates are required to collect signatures of voters who live in the ward they seek to represent. If the boundaries for the primaries change now, after the signatures have been collected, it’s possible that someone who signed a petition for a candidate in (old) Ward 3, for example, is reassigned to the new (proposed) Ward 4. The loss of that signature could result in a candidate falling short of the 100 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

But arguments against changing the boundaries for the primary elections, after the filing deadline for those elections, apply equally well against changing the boundaries between the primary and the general elections.

By way of another kind of specific example, a resident of the current (old) Ward 1, who is reassigned to the proposed (new) Ward 2, will not have any primary election in which to participate – that’s because no partisan candidate filed for the primary in Ward 1. That person would then be presented with a single choice in Ward 2 in November (assuming no independent candidate files by Aug. 15).

That scenario effectively disenfranchises the voter.

What Are Our Choices?

It would seem that we have a difficult choice: (1) violate a timing provision of Michigan’s Home Rule Cities Act, or (2) violate any number of basic principles of our democracy familiar to any schoolchild, not to mention various other issues of legal liability that are beyond even the wonky scope of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. [For readers who enjoy that sort of thing, here's a link to a .pdf file of a memo written to the Ann Arbor city council by local attorney Tom Wieder: Wieder memo on ward reapportionment].

I would suggest that the city’s choice is not that difficult. The Home Rule Cities Act simply sets a timeframe for the reapportionment work to be done. It does not stipulate when the reapportioned wards must be enacted and used in an election cycle.

I would suggest that the city council consider and enact the reapportionment sometime before Nov. 8, with the stipulation that the new boundaries are to be used for elections after Nov. 8, 2011.

Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The general election on Tuesday, Nov. 2 comes after eight games have been played on a 12-game schedule for the University of Michigan football team. The guys in the winged helmets are currently sitting at 5-3, which is better than the 2-7 record they’d achieved at the same point during their 2008 campaign.

The top end of a voting machine tape from Ward 1, Precinct 5 from the Aug. 3, 2010 primary.

For me, the 2008 general election – and because I am quick to generalize, all elections – will always be linked to UM football. They’re linked in the form of Jonas Mouton, a linebacker I met in the course of my election day travels in 2008. Mouton was nearly denied the franchise when he tried to vote at the Pioneer High School precinct, but was finally able to cast his ballot.

Elections are, of course, not one bit like a football game, let alone a football season – that’s purely a writerly ploy to set up some kind of thematic backdrop against which I can ask readers a favor: We’re asking for help in collecting precinct-level election results on Tuesday night.

Otherwise put, on Tuesday evening, we’d like to ask that you play for The Chronicle’s team. To quote legendary UM coach Bo Schembechler, when we collect the precinct level results, “we’re gonna play together as a team. We’re gonna believe in each other, we’re not gonna criticize each other, we’re not gonna talk about each other, we’re gonna encourage each other.”

Veteran consumers of local online information know that election results for all the precincts in Washtenaw County will eventually be available on the county clerk’s website. As results are filed with the clerk, election staff upload them incrementally. With polls closing at 8 p.m., and poll closing procedures taking roughly 30-60 minutes to complete, the first results typically begin to appear on the clerk’s website towards 10 p.m. and are generally uploaded for the entire county sometime in the early morning hours, if not sooner. That’s pretty quick, actually.

But it’s not Denard Robinson quick.

So The Chronicle is making publicly accessible a Google spreadsheet with city of Ann Arbor election results that will contain data that’s available directly from the precinct polling places. Results should start to trickle into that spreadsheet around 8:30 p.m. and could be completed by 9 p.m. or so.

We experimented with this approach back during the Aug. 3 primary – a kind of non-conference game warm up – and what we learned is that it would be helpful to have more people on our team. If you’d like to help – by gaining editing access to the spreadsheet, or by texting, Tweeting, or calling in results to us – shoot us an email: dave.askins@annarborchronicle.com.

For readers who are willing to play on our team, but are daunted because they don’t know how to run any of our plays, I’ve put together a short election eve playbook.

Paper Tape

The optical scanning voting machines generate a paper tape with all the tabulated results from the paper ballots it scanned during the day. It’s similar in appearance to a cash-register receipt. This is what you’re waiting for.

Note that the poll workers generate the paper tape from the voting machines as one of the later steps in the regimented process for closing down the polling location. They generate two tapes as a part of their prescribed procedure, and then generate an additional tape, which they’ll affix to the wall outside the entrance to the polling place for public viewing. If a poll worker drops one of the paper tapes, do not yell “FUMBLE!” and start a scrum for it. That’s a personal foul and is penalized from the spot of the infraction with 15 yards and a loss of down.

Procedures

Be respectful of the fact that poll workers have already worked a long and tedious day. Don’t crowd them – that’s a 5-yard penalty for being off-sides. If they ask why you’re there, tell them, and ask where you can park yourself so that you are out of their way. Don’t try to chit chat with them. You’re not allowed to help them. Just sit on the bench and be patient.

Preferred Data

The ballot contains over a hundred different data points. If you volunteer to play on The Chronicle’s team, are we really expecting you to report every piece of data on the paper tape? No. Some of you will choose to do that. Others will choose to report just some of the races – those you have time for, or those you think are the most interesting. We’re not going to yell at you and make you do punishment push-ups for not reporting exhaustively. As Bo said, “we’re not gonna criticize each other, we’re not gonna talk about each other, we’re gonna encourage each other.”

Preferred Data Entry Method

It’s less work for The Chronicle if you opt to accept access to the spreadsheet and enter the results directly into the sheet. But some of you might want to just head over to the polls and send us a text message or an email with a result or two. That’s fine – a touchdown drive is sometimes made up of 3- and 4-yard runs.

Preferred Precinct

The most natural precinct to choose would be your usual voting location. If we hear from several people who are covering a particular precinct, though, we might suggest a different one that’s still close to your neighborhood. But if multiple people wind up collecting results from the tape at a single polling location, guess what we’d like you to do?

That’s right. Work together to double- or triple-team the paper tape. That way it’ll go faster for everyone.

Go team.

Behind the county clerk's counter on election night, inspecting poll books from the city of Ann Arbor. Only Ann Arbor uses pink paper – all others are white. No one at the clerk's office knows why. From left: Ward Beauchamp, Jason Brooks, Jen Beauchamp, Janna Parmeter. (Photo by the writer.)

It’s a few minutes after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3, and polls throughout Washtenaw County have just closed. At this point it’s fairly quiet in the offices of the county clerk, where about a half dozen people are preparing for what could be a long night of processing election returns.

Matt Yankee, the deputy clerk in charge of elections, is drinking a Diet Coke and fielding questions about what needs to be done. Jason Brooks, another deputy clerk, asks how he can help. “Why don’t you do the phones and be an Ann Arbor runner?” Yankee suggests. Brooks gives a mock salute, and almost on cue, the phone rings.

The premiere of the ABC series “V” is playing on a large screen TV in the office – a ticker of election results from metro Detroit is running along the bottom of the screen – but nobody is watching.

The Chronicle spent several hours on election night shadowing this crew, getting a glimpse of what it takes to handle the returns from 116 precincts in Washtenaw County. Though there were a few glitches – mostly problems stemming from the printing company hired to make the ballots – the evening is remarkable for its organized, systematic execution of tasks. Elections are events in which the uneventful is desired.

That’s not to say that nothing happened.

Hour One: 8-9 p.m.

The entrance to the county building in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Main and Ann streets, is locked when The Chronicle arrives – later, the doors will be opened so that township clerks can get in to deliver election materials. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum lets us in, and escorts us back to the office area where results will be processed.

Deputy Jerry Flowers. (Photo by the writer.)

One of the first people we meet is Deputy Jerry Flowers, who’s sitting in the small waiting area in the clerk’s office. He tells us that for every election, there’s a security detail from the county sheriff’s department – a deputy who stays there until the county election workers are ready to go home, just in case there’s trouble.

Has there ever been any trouble? “Not really,” Flowers says. “It’s usually pretty quiet in Ann Arbor.” Frankly, it seems like a mind-numbing job, but Flowers says he volunteers for the duty and has done it for several years. For the record, we don’t observe him eating any of the Washtenaw Dairy donuts that someone brought in earlier in the day.

Early in the evening, the office hears from someone else in the sheriff’s department: Derrick Jackson, former deputy clerk in charge of elections. He calls in to ask if they’ve heard any results from the Ypsilanti Township millage vote. Jackson now works for Sheriff Jerry Clayton as director of community engagement – he’s interested in the millage because it would be used to pay for sheriff deputy patrols. [The millage fails by a narrow margin, rejected by 51.42% of voters.]

Yankee reports that in the Washtenaw County portion of Milan Township, the countywide school millage has “failed major-ly,” by a vote of 40 to 188. This will prove to be a bellwether for the evening.

Around 8:40 p.m. Conan Smith and Rebekah Warren drop by, looking for an update on results. [Smith is a county commissioner representing District 10 in Ann Arbor; Warren is a state representative for Ann Arbor's District 53, and is running for the state senate seat in District 18. That election will be held a year from now – they had no direct skin in the game for the current election.]

A scan of two ballot stubs, showing how the perforation between the main ballot and the stub was not made in a straight line. Because the stubs tore off at an angle, the voting machines had a difficult time reading the main ballot. (Photo links to larger image.)

Brooks tells them that Ann Arbor won’t be finished for a while, because of some ballot issues. County staff has been hearing all day from city and township clerks, who’ve reported that some ballots aren’t feeding into voting machines property, or aren’t being read. In Ann Arbor, for example, in several precincts there’s a one-ballot discrepancy between the machine count and the actual number of ballots. That count has to be resolved before delivering results to the county.

Brooks describes how the printer misaligned the perforation between the main ballots and the ballot stubs, which are torn off before the ballots are fed into the voting machine. “It looks like a six-year-old cut it with scissors,” he quips.

Smith, who’s executive director at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, checks his Blackberry to see if results are in for one of his staff members, who’s running for city council in Ferndale. Kestenbaum ambles out and chats for a while, telling them that the printer will be fired. Later, he tells The Chronicle that the county might dispute the bill as well, given the problems they encountered.

Hour Two: 9-10 p.m.

Matt Yankee reports that Sylvan Township’s clerk was the first to deliver results at the front counter, beating out a disappointed Freedom Township by just a couple of minutes. Both of these townships have only one precinct each – Sylvan in particular is always “super fast,” Yankee says. And yes, it’s competitive.

Calls start coming in more frequently from random citizens and people affiliated with different campaigns. These are always answered politely, no matter how harried Brooks and Yankee are. They give the results from the county’s election website, and tell people that the best thing to do is to check that site throughout the evening. They also caution that at this point, results are preliminary, with only a small percentage of precincts reporting so far.

Brooks tells The Chronicle that he got his first call at 6:15 a.m. that morning, from someone wanting to know where to vote.

“Dancing with the Stars” is now on TV – still, no one is watching.

Matt Yankee fishes out a memory card from an official blue Washtenaw County bag. To upload election results, he'll insert the card into the machine on the desk next to him. Data is managed by the GEMS (Global Election Management System) software program. (Photo by the writer.)

Deputy clerk Jen Beauchamp is supervising the front counter, where the clerks deliver their materials. By 9:15 p.m., Bridgewater Township clerk Cindy Carver and Ann Becktel, Manchester Township’s clerk, have arrived with their ballot packets. They joke that they’re disappointed they aren’t first.

Like the other clerks, they hand over several items: Computer memory cards from each precinct, containing results from the voting machines; a report tape – a paper receipt of results printed by the voting machine; a statement of votes; and a poll book, which includes most of the information from the day, including signatures verifying the results.

The memory cards are delivered in blue nylon bags with the Washtenaw County seal printed in white. Other materials arrive in one of two envelopes, marked for the county clerk or the county board of canvassers, which will review the results on Thursday, handle any outstanding issues, and validate the results.

Throughout the evening, Yankee processes memory cards, uploading the information on them into the software program GEMS (Global Election Management System). A couple of times, Yankee encounters memory cards that have been wiped clean. This requires that he get the poll book and enter the results manually.

The Ann Arbor city clerk’s office reports that they’ve finished up several precincts, so Brooks heads over to pick up whatever is ready. Since city hall is just a couple of blocks away, the county staff is willing to make several of these runs so that they can process the results incrementally throughout the night. Ann Arbor, with nearly 50 precincts, is by far the largest in the county.

Hour Three: 10-11 p.m.

It’s 10:15 p.m. and about 20% of the precincts have reported in. The margin against the countywide school millage is widening – nearly 58% have voted against it, but Yankee notes that they haven’t yet tallied all of Ann Arbor, and haven’t heard from Pittsfield or Scio townships.

Several other townships trickle in. Brooks has been trying to reach the clerk in London Township with a question about some information they need – no one is answering the phone, and he figures they’ve already gone home. London Township is located in Monroe County, but some residents there live in the Milan school district and were voting on the Washtenaw school millage. Brooks can’t reach anyone in the Monroe County clerk’s office either. They’ll have to wait until Wednesday morning, Yankee says.

At 10:50 p.m., Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe – a former county commissioner – is at the counter, looking tired. It’s been a long day.

Near 11 p.m., Kestenbaum observes that with 45% of the precincts now in, the school millage is down by more than 4,000 votes. “I can’t see how it can make it now,” he says.

Hour Four: 11 p.m.-midnight

Outside calls are now brisk, from people wanting to know results. Pittsfield Township has reported in, and Ann Arbor has finished up most of its precincts. That leaves Scio Township as the largest municipality that hasn’t yet reported in.

This will be an early night, relatively speaking. A year ago, heavy turnout for the presidential race meant that the county elections staff worked through the night – Brooks said he was there until 4 a.m.

Matt Yankee, at the computer, shows Jason Brooks how to enter data into the election software program. Both are deputy clerks with Washtenaw County.

But by 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday, things have slowed down considerably. Brooks goes into the office where Yankee is uploading memory cards. “Jen told me to bounce,” Brooks says, referring to Jen Beauchamp, the deputy clerk who’s been staffing the front counter where clerks are dropping off results.

Yankee plans to stay a while longer, which means he won’t be there when Brooks returns in the morning. He asks Brooks to follow up on some outstanding issues on Wednesday – the information they need from London Township, for one thing – and shows him how to enter the data into the GEMS program, when he gets it.

With that, Brooks takes off. “See you, Matt,” he says, “but hopefully not tomorrow.” If they cross paths in the morning, it will mean that something unexpected happened.

At that point, Yankee and Kestenbaum were confident there’d be no 11th-hour surprises – there weren’t, Yankee told The Chronicle on Wednesday. At midnight, with about 75% of the precincts reporting, the results had solidified – including the defeat of the county school millage.

And in the Washtenaw Dairy box, six donuts remained.

University Townhouses, the polling location for Precinct 5 in Ward 3, had specific improvements made under a 2005 grant. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

In a letter dated Sept. 1, 2009, addressed to Ann Arbor’s city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, the nonprofit Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service Inc. gave the city a Sept. 15 deadline to respond to its concerns about accessibility to polling locations in Ann Arbor.

The response deadline comes two weeks ahead of the expiration of a grant for which the city was approved in 2007 under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The grant was for improvements in accessibility to Tappan and Eberwhite schools.

Lansing-based MPAS is concerned that the city has not submitted work for reimbursement under the 2007 grant. And that would put in jeopardy the city’s 2009 grant application for improvements to five additional locations – Northside, Dicken, Lawton, Lakewood and Pittsfield elementary schools. The MPAS letter paints a picture suggesting the city has not made progress towards addressing problems that the city itself identified in 2004 at 21 of the city’s 48 precincts.

However, after checking into the matter with MPAS, the state’s Bureau of Elections, and Ann Arbor city staff, The Chronicle has concluded that: (i) the situation with the 2007 grant is a matter of non-communication and paperwork follow-through, (ii) that prior to 2007, the city of Ann Arbor completed work under HAVA grants, with some reimbursements already made, and other payments still in process, and (iii) the city’s strategy for ensuring access uses a variety of temporary measures on election days, as well as a work plan for more permanent fixes.

Where The Chronicle Started

The letter from MPAS cites 2005 as the year when the city of Ann Arbor identified polling places in need of accessibility improvements. A phone call to MPAS pointed us to a 2005 HAVA grant award for specific improvements to be made at three different polling places: University Townhouses (Ward 3), Ann Arbor Community Center (Ward 1) and the Second Baptist Church (Ward 5).

If MPAS was contending that 2007 grant money hadn’t been used, we wondered: What about the 2005 grant? So we began with those 2005 locations.

We had recent familiarity with those places. The Chronicle had toured all polling locations in Wards 3 and 5 during the Aug. 4, 2009 Democratic primary elections – which included the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses. The Chronicle also covered the city Democratic party candidate forums held at the Ann Arbor Community Center.

Second Baptist Church in Ward 5 (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

It had been our recollection that those three locations had some kind of ramps and signage – but it takes more than some ramp or sign to meet accessibility requirements. So we elected to return to those locations as part of this report to document photographically their outside entrances. The Ann Arbor Community Center didn’t appear to have had any work done recently. But the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses showed signs of having recent work completed.

Was it enough to make the locations accessible? Had the city of Ann Arbor sought and received reimbursement? If so, was MPAS aware of the city’s past HAVA record?

First, though, what is the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service and the Help America Vote Act?

Background on MPAS and HAVA

The outcome of the Gore versus Bush 2000 presidential election was controversial – due to how ballots were counted and evaluated initially and during recounts. At least partly in response to that controversy, the Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002. Goals of that legislation included improvements in voting systems (how voters actually indicate their vote) and the overall administration of elections.

As a part of that act, funds were made available for improvements not just in voting equipment, but also to make improvements in the accessibility of polling places. In Michigan those federal funds are provided in the form of grants awarded and administered by the state Bureau of Elections. The award of a grant does not mean that funds are transferred – the work must be completed and paid for, and is then reimbursed.

Physical access to polling sites is supported by federal laws: the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) of 1984, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires access to places of public accomodation. The ADA requires removal of architectural barriers to the extent that such removal is readily achievable, but the act does not require structural changes if other methods can accomplish the same goal.

Where does the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service fit in? MPAS is an entity designated by the governor to advocate for people with disabilities. And with respect to HAVA grants, MPAS verifies that the polling places identified by a municipality are, in fact, currently deficient. A HAVA grant award is made to a municipality based on a recommendation from MPAS.

That’s what happened in 2005 when Ann Arbor was awarded $16,750 that it could claim in reimbursements. In the press release from Sept. 30, 2005, issued by the state Bureau of Elections, Beaudry is quoted as saying, “The polling place improvements made as a result of this grant award will provide for greater independent access to the precincts and the voting process for all residents of the city of Ann Arbor.”

Improvements at Ann Arbor Polling Places

-

2005

Returning to the apparent improvements that The Chronicle had noticed at the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses: Was any of the 2005 HAVA grant money spent on those projects?

According to the state Bureau of Elections, out of the $16,750 awarded that year, $4,450 was paid. The rest of these funds were canceled and a new application processed. Those remaining funds would have gone to reimburse work at the Ann Arbor Community Center – but around that time, in the summer of 2006, the future use of AACC as a polling place was uncertain. The center faced a financial crisis described in a June 28, 2006 Ann Arbor News article [this link goes to the Ann Arbor District Library archive, which requires free registration]. The article states:

Barring a major infusion of cash, the center at 625 N. Main St., which specializes in serving the black community, had faced the possibility of closing Friday. But in an emergency meeting Tuesday, its governing board set up a plan for the center to operate with limited hours starting next week.

On the phone this week with The Chronicle, city clerk Jackie Beaudry recalled how in November of 2006, Precinct 4 in Ward 1 had moved its polling place to Community High School, doubling up with Precinct 3. Given the uncertainty of the center’s future, Beaudry said, the grant application was withdrawn. Reapplication would be made in 2007.

2006

In the 2006 HAVA grant cycle, Ann Arbor was awarded $15,300, with $2,400 paid to date. According to the city of Ann Arbor, and confirmed by the state Bureau of Elections, that grant was for work at King, Tappan, and Eberwhite elementary schools. The work at King was completed, but extensions were requested for Tappan and Eberwhite to the summer of 2009.

According to Beaudry, the work for Tappan and Eberwhite was completed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools in the summer of 2009. We can lend partial support to that contention, based just on our Aug. 4, 2009 primary elelection report, for which we toured all the precinct locations:

3:05 p.m. Ward 5. Eberwhite Elementary. Lots of construction around the school. Sidewalk repairs and whatnot. Ann Arbor Public Schools seems to have a capital maintenance program running up til the opening of school session.

It’s the fact that the Tappan and Eberwhite grants are still open that eventually led to the current focus and scrutiny by MPAS. The Sept. 30 deadline in the MPAS letter comes from the Bureau of Elections, which wrote in an email to The Chronicle: “We are waiting to hear what they [the city of Ann Arbor] want to do with this money prior to September 30, 2009.”

2007-2009

In October 2007, with the Tappan and Eberwhite grants still open, Ann Arbor applied for three additional grants:

1. Slauson Middle School (elevator, parking)
2. Clague Middle School (exterior ramps)
3. Ann Arbor Community Center (reapplication for parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule)

But according to Wendy Rampson, who’s head of planning and development with the city, Ann Arbor didn’t receive any official notification about those applications from the Bureau of Elections.

So in May 2009, city staff requested official responses on the 2007 applications. There’s been no response from the BOE to date, according to Rampson. Also in May 2009, the city applied for five additional grants, and has not yet received official notification from the BOE:

1. Dicken School (parking, thresholds)
2. Lakewood School (thresholds)
3. Lawton School (parking, thresholds)
4. Northside School (parking)
5. Pittsfield School (thresholds, vestibule)

Open Grants: Source of Friction

Because the Tappan and Eberwhite grants are still open, the Bureau of Elections did not respond to Ann Arbor’s 2007 grant request, nor to the followup in 2009, which included additional grant requests. For Beaudry, the BOE’s non-response on the matter didn’t communicate what was really happening – BOE was not responding due to the failure to close out the Tappan and Eberwhite grants.

Given that the work at Tappan and Eberwhite has recently been completed, Beaudry is now working with the Ann Arbor Public Schools to get receipts for the work, so that those grants can be closed. Ideally, she says, she’d like to be able to tell MPAS by their Sept. 15 deadline that the receipts have already been submitted for reimbursement. Beaudry says that in any case she’ll be meeting with a representative of MPAS to talk about how the city of Ann Arbor approaches accessibility to its polling places.

Ongoing Polling Place Improvement Process

Part of Ann Arbor’s approach to accessibility to polling places can be seen in a 2004 list of locations [link to Excel spreadsheet] identified as needing improvements. MPAS confirmed that they’d also visited those locations and agreed with the need to make improvements. On that list, 21 of the 48 precincts in the city of Ann Arbor were identified by the city as needing work. Because four locations serve as polling locations for two precincts each, the total number of different locations identified as needing improvements was 17.

The Chronicle has merged the 2004 list with the city’s current list of all polling places – provided by Rampson – together with their current accessibility issues and grants into a single spreadsheet [link to Excel spreadsheet].

Selecting out those on the 2004 list and sorting by precinct gives a good overview of what’s been happening with the 2004 problem locations over the last five years. In the list, each location is preceded by its [Ward]-[Precinct]:

• 1-04 Ann Arbor Community Center 2005 grant (parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule improvements) Grant turned back due to financial issues at AACC; reapplication in 2007 (parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule); 2009 requested response
• 1-05 Northside Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking)
• 1-06 Northside Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking)
• 1-07 UM Bursley Hall
• 1-08 Ann Arbor Open Elementary *Accessible*
• 1-09 Clague Middle School *Grant Requested* 2007 applied but no BOE response (exterior ramps); 2009 requested response
• 2-02 UM Mary Markley Hall
• 2-06 Clague Middle School *Grant Requested* 2007 applied but no BOE response ( exterior ramps); 2009 requested response
• 2-07 King Elementary *Accessible* 2006 grant (parking, ramp) – completed in 2007
• 3-01 UM East Quad
• 3-02 UM East Quad
• 3-03 Tappan Middle School *Grant Approved* 2006 grant (parking, door hardware, threshold) – extension requested to complete in summer 2009
• 3-08 Pittsfield Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (thresholds, vestibule)
• 4-01 UM South Quad
• 4-07 Dicken Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 4-09 Lawton Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 5-04 Slauson Middle School *Accessible* 2007 applied but no BOE response (elevator, parking); 2009 requested response
• 5-05 Slauson Middle School *Accessible* 2007 applied but no BOE response (elevator, parking); 2009 requested response
• 5-06 Eberwhite Elementary *Grant Approved* 2006 grant (parking, ramp, door improvements) – extension requested to complete in summer 2009
• 5-07 Dicken Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 5-08 Lakewood Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (thresholds)

The gaps in activity on the list have a clear pattern – Bursley, Markley, East Quad, and South Quad are University of Michigan residence halls.

Asked about that pattern, Beaudry said that conversations with the University of Michigan were ongoing about “possible polling place relocations.” In addition to accessibility concerns, Beaudry reported, UM has other concerns about the future use of the residence hall sites due to campus safety and security.

The collaboration with the Ann Arbor Public Schools, Beaudy said, reflected a certain commitment to the long-term use of the sites as polling locations.

For sites like UM residence halls – which show no grant activity to support accessibility improvements – or for Ann Arbor school sites, which have improvements pending, how accessible are these locations on election day?

The spreadsheet of polling locations includes a description of temporary measures that are implemented at each polling location on election day, to ensure that people can access the polls. For example, for East Quad, the notation is that “No accessible parking space available.” The remedy is specified as follows: “On Election Days, bag metered on-street parking space near intersection curb ramp for accessible space.” The responsibility for that is assigned to the city clerk.

The goal, says Beaudry, is to achieve permanent solutions to accessibility at polling places. That’s a goal supported by the Center for Independent Living, she explained. The CIL works along with the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, the Washtenaw County clerk’s office and the Ann Arbor District Library on the Voter Access Committee.

Photos: Ann Arbor Community Center

-

Ann Arbor Community Center in Ward 1. Entrance from parking lot. There are issues with the ramp and the signage, as well as the door frame. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor Community Center entrance on North Main Street. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor Community Center sidewalk from front entrance down to entrance off parking lot. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

-

Photos: University Townhouses

-

University Townhouses (Ward 3) entrance. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

University Townhouses entrance door. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

University Townhouses ramp with handrails. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

Matt Yankee, deputy clerk with Washtenaw County, marks ticks in columns as candidate names are read aloud during the recount of the Aug. 4 Democratic primary election for the Ward 3 city council seat. (Photo by the writer.)

Friday morning in the lower level of the county building at 200 N. Main, Letitia Kunselman held her cell phone out in the general direction of Melodie Gable, chair of Washtenaw County’s board of canvassers. Gable was wrapping up about 90 minutes of ballot recounting from the Ward 3 Democratic primary for Ann Arbor city council. By that time, her official announcement stated an outcome that everyone in the room already knew.

We’d followed the hand recount of paper ballots table-by-table, as one precinct after the other confirmed individual vote totals from the initial Aug. 4 results.

What Gable reported was exactly the news that Letitia Kunselman’s husband Stephen – on the other end of the cell phone line – wanted to hear: his own 511 votes compared to Leigh Greden’s 505 had been confirmed, leaving Kunselman the winner of the primary. The third candidate, LuAnne Bullington, picked up one vote in the recount in precincts 3-4 and 3-7 (these precincts shared a single polling location on election day), bringing her total to 382.

We include in our report the vote totals, some anecdotal bits from the morning recount, but more importantly, a brief look at the impact that Greden’s departure will have on council’s committee composition.

Results After the Recount

At the end of the recount on Friday morning, here’s how the final vote tally stood:

WARD 3             Bullington  Greden   Kunselman

Precinct 3-1,3-2      3         20        45
Precinct 3-3         92        160        96
Precinct 3-4,3-7    149        159       137
Precinct 3-5         25         32        23
Precinct 3-6,3-9     66         75       118
Precinct 3-8         47         59        92

Totals              382        505       511

-

Miscellaneous Roundup from the Morning Recount

-

Overall Mood: Not Bitter

Given the number of “watchers” on behalf of the various candidates, The Chronicle posed a question to Greden, regarding which people were there on his behalf: “So not all of the watchers are here officially watching for you …” He quipped in reply: “No, Latitia Letitia Kunselman is not here watching on my behalf.”

Greden also showed no visible sign of chaffing when his name was repeatedly mispronounced at one of the counting tables – each candidate’s name is called out when a ballot with a vote for them is examined. Last year, at the Ward 5 Carsten Hohnke-Vivienne Armentrout recount, The Chronicle noted that “… a predictable range of pronunciations for ‘Hohkne‘ ‘Hohnke’ could be heard.” This year, it probably couldn’t have been predicted that Greden would be rendered as “Brenden” – but it was.

Where Was Kunselman?

Why wasn’t Stephen Kunselman there in person? Letitia Kunselman told The Chronicle that he was in California – he’d gone with his son, Shane, to launch him into his freshman year in college.

Who Were the Watchers?

In alphabetical order, the names of the watchers – who helped verify that the recounting was proceeding to the satisfaction of all interested parties:

• Tim Colenbeck Colenback
  
• Dave DeVarti
• Tony Derezinski
• Jack Eaton
• Diane Giannola
• Lou Glorie
• Leah Gunn
• Letitia Kunselman
• Pat Lesko
• Joan Lowenstein
• Lois Mayfield
• Peggy Rabhi
• Karen Sidney
• Christopher Taylor
• Tom Wieder

We leave it as a political puzzle to match watchers with the candidate on whose behalf they attended.

Impact on Committee Structure

The city council reorganizes itself into committees soon after the new council is formally installed every November. Five committees on which Greden currently serves will thus have a different look in a couple of months. Here’s who currently serves on those committees:

• Budget and Labor Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• Council Administration Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall
• City Council Representative to DDA Partnerships Committee: Leigh Greden
• Student Relations Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke

Where Did These Committees Come From?

We’ve pieced together a brief history of these committees based on the description in the 2006 City of Ann Arbor Boards, Commissions and Committees document. Some significant consolidations in committee structure took place in December 2005. One effect of the restructuring was to collapse different committees with similar functions into single committees. One consequence, in some cases, was to reduce the breadth of participation in committees.

Budget and Labor (Negotiation) Committee

The stated purpose of the council’s budget and labor committee is:

To work with City Administrator to advise about City labor issues. To advise the Mayor, Council and City Administrator on matters relating to the City’s comprehensive annual financial report, audited statements and management letter; appointment of independent auditors; the City’s financial condition including revenue issues; financial investment policies and procedures; short- term and long-term borrowing policies and proposals; matters relating to the budget process, implementation and administration; and short-term and long-term financial polices and plans.

The council’s Budget and Labor Committee was established on Dec. 5, 2005 when the city council of that year passed the resolution establishing its committee structure for 2006. The membership of the Budget and Labor Committee is defined as five members – the mayor plus four members of the city council. It included at that time – and appears to continue to include – three ex officio members: the city administrator, the city’s chief financial officer, and a member of the commission on disability issues.

Budget and Labor combined what had previously been two different committees: (i) the Budget/Finance Committee, and (ii) the Labor Negotiation Committee.

Prior to 2006, the Budget/Finance Committee was a 13-member body: the mayor, four councilmembers, three citizen members, the city administrator or representative, the budget director, the finance director, and two other department heads appointed by the city administrator.

Prior to 2006, the only mention of the Labor Negotiation Committee we could find was a reference to the 1997 edition of that 5-member council committee: Stephen C. Hartwell and Elisabeth L. Daley (Democrats), and Ingrid Sheldon, David Kwan, and Jane Lumm (Republicans).

When first established as such in December 2005, the council’s Budget and Labor Committee consisted of John Hieftje, Christopher Easthope, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, and Joan Lowenstein.

Council Administration Committee

The Council Administration Committee was also established in December 2005 as the combination of other previously existing committees when council reorganized its committees:

Established to combine the following committees into one: Special Liquor Committee, Real Estate Committee, Ad Hoc Rules Committee, City Attorney Committee, City Administrator Committee.

The last two committees in the list historically performed the specific task of evaluating the performance of the city attorney and the city administrator. For both of these committees, the membership was specified to be the mayor plus a councilmember of each ward (for a total of six), the specific councilmember to be determined by the two ward representatives.

In council rules, the Council Administration Committee is given a large part of the responsibility of setting and approving the agenda:

Approval of the Draft Agenda. The City Administrator shall submit the draft agenda and supporting materials to the Council Administration Committee for approval 10 days prior to the next Council meeting. The Council Administration Committee will approve the agenda 7 days prior to the next Council meeting. Once approved by the Council Administration Committee, no matter from staff shall be placed on the agenda for action. Council members may add items to the agenda at any time.

When originally constituted as such in December 2005, the membership of the Council Administration Committee consisted of Leigh Greden, Christopher Easthope, Marcia Higgins, John Roberts and Margie Teall.

DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee

The DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee was formed for the specific purpose of renegotiating the parking agreement between the Downtown Development Authority and the city. The city has a goal of convincing the DDA to pay around $2 million to the city for the 2011 budget year, which the DDA is not contractually obligated to pay.

In early 2009, the city council passed a resolution calling on the DDA to open a discussion on the topic. The DDA responded by forming a committee to meet with a corresponding committee on the city council. The city council then delayed formation of its own committee, because some councilmembers did not like the constitution of the DDA’s committee. One place to start for some of the details of that dynamic is a May 23, 2009 article on the DDA mid-year retreat.

[In the original version of this article, the Letitia Kunselman's name was misspelled throughout.]

Seated at the table, Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk, and Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, who helped staff one of the recount tables. In red in the background: Melodie Gable, chair of the county's board of canvassers. Holding a cup in the background is Ann Arbor city clerk, Jackie Beaudry. (Photo by the writer.)

Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, wields wire snips to break the seal of a bag containing paper ballots. Note: The Chronicle made its civic contribution to the recount by lending out the wire snips (we carry a bag of tools everywhere) to save some time in tracking down scissors. (Photo by the writer.)

Leigh Greden, left, with Joan Lowenstein and Jackie Beaudry, right. (Photo by the writer.)

At right and mostly off camera, Tom Wieder follows the tick marks of the recounting on his own notepad. The orange folder in the background belongs to Leigh Greden. (Photo by the writer.)

"Whoah, there, Larry Kestenbaum, sit back down, I didn't say I was done talking to you!" That, of course, is not what this WEMU reporter said to the county clerk. Kestenbaum gave welcoming and closing remarks at the recount. (Photo by the writer.)

The three candidates running unopposed for the Ann Arbor Public Schools board at a League of Women Voters forum Monday night at CTN studios. From left: Glenn Nelson, Irene Patalan, and Ravi Nigam.

On May 5, voters in Ann Arbor will choose three people to serve on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board. Actually, “choose” might not be the operative word: All three candidates are running unopposed.

Two incumbents – Glenn Nelson and Irene Patalan – are running for four-year terms. Ravi Nigam, a local attorney who has not previously held an elected position, was originally running against Adam Hollier for a two-year term. Hollier has dropped out of the race, though his name will still appear on the ballot.

So rather than the debates they typically hold before local elections, the League of Women Voters instead held a forum Monday evening for the three candidates, asking their opinions on the budget, technology, the achievement gap and a range of other topics. The hour-long event was broadcast live from the Community Television Network studios on South Industrial, and is available to view online.

The league had asked Chronicle readers to suggest questions for the forum, which moderator Judy Mich incorporated to some extent. Here’s a summary of candidates’ responses.

Technology

What’s the status of technology in the schools, and how is it being used? What options for online studies are currently available, and what does the future hold in that regard?

Nelson: A bond passed by voters in 2004 allowed the district to upgrade technology in the schools, Nelson said, but it will soon be time to make another update. The state House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would expand the ability of districts to use sinking fund millages for broader purposes, including technology. [Last year, voters approved an extension of the AAPS sinking fund millage, which is used for building remodeling projects.] Nelson urged residents to contact their state senators (in Ann Arbor, that’s Liz Brater) to push for passage of the bill in the Senate.

Patalan: All students are required by state law to have some kind of online experience, Patalan said, and AAPS is way ahead of the game in that regard. She said staff would be giving a presentation at the April 22 school board meeting about a program that allows students to take online courses. [Patalan did not describe the program in detail, but she was referring to the Ann Arbor Options Program offered by Community High, which allows students who live in the AAPS district to take certain courses online.] She thanked the community for approving the bond to fund technology purchases.

Nigam: Because two of his children graduated from Huron High, and another child is in elementary school, Nigam said he has a good sense of how technology is used in the schools. The district could do a better job of using all it has to offer, he said, which might mean more teacher training. He supports the use of online courses as an alternative approach to education.

Communication & New Media

Candidates were asked to comment on how they would communicate with the public in light of the closing of the Ann Arbor News this summer. How will they develop effective communication with new media?

Nigam: Web 2.0 technologies can help push out information to the public, Nigam said, but the changing media environment requires that the schools figure out different ways to disseminate information. The board will need to learn to use new technologies and interact with new media.

Nelson: Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, is putting together a group to strategize about communication issues, Nelson said. He gave out her phone number – 734.994.2236 – and urged people to contact her if they are interested in getting involved.

Patalan: There are many ways for the public to find out information about the schools, Patalan said, such as watching school board meetings on CTN, listening to local news reports on WEMU, or getting information from the AAPS website. She said communication was a “two-way street” between the schools and the public – it’s not just the schools’ responsibility.

Skyline High School

Now that Skyline is completing its first year in operation, Mich asked the candidates to assess how it was doing.

Zoe Behnke, Judy Mich and Barbara Clarke – members of the League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area – confer before the start of Monday night's forum, organized and moderated by the league and held at Community Television Network studios on South Industrial.

Patalan: Ten years ago, Patalan was part of a group of parents who pushed to build Skyline, and she says she’s proud of the school. Freshmen attending Skyline this year got a taste of its magnet programs, she said, which will continue to be developed. [Patalan didn't name the focus of the magnet programs, but they are in 1) health and medicine, 2) design technology and environmental planning, 3) communication, public policy and media, and 4) marketing, business and information technology.]

Nigam: Saying he didn’t know much specifically about Skyline, Nigam said in general he supports the idea of smaller-sized high schools, noting that the purpose for building Skyline was to reduce overcrowding at Pioneer and Huron. He also thinks that magnet programs are important and he’d like to do more of them – it’s one way to retain and attract students who might otherwise go to charter schools or private schools, he said.

Nelson: Skyline is a big success, Nelson said, and its existence improves conditions at all of the high schools by allowing teachers to do things that they couldn’t have done when class sizes were larger. He also noted that the bond that paid for Skyline has funded other projects, too – like the new AAPS Preschool and Family Center on Boardwalk.

Economic Stimulus

Is AAPS getting its fair share of federal economic stimulus dollars? On a related note, President Obama’s education plan calls for merit increases. What’s your opinion of that?

Nigam: Nigam said he knew the AAPS administration was working on getting funding through the stimulus package, but that he didn’t know the details. Regarding merit raises, he said those would be difficult to institute, given the constraints of union contracts. However, coming from the private sector, he said he does believe in merit increases. If students get shortchanged in the education process, parents will move them out of the system, he said. Teachers who aren’t working up to the district’s standards should get training they need to improve.

Nelson: Merit pay is a topic that should be discussed at the board level, Nelson said. It should be a partnership between the administration and teachers, to find a way to recognize good teachers. Rather than looking at federal funding, he said it’s important to understand the lack of state funding and the challenges that presents. State appropriations in 2001 for K-12 education equaled 3.65% of state personal income. If the current budget is passed as proposed, that percentage would be 3.28. If the level had remained at 3.65%, they’d have $804 more for every pupil in public and charter schools statewide, he said. “I think it’s very disturbing and the answer to us in our community is we need to pick up the slack.”

Patalan: Gov. Granholm had originally proposed cutting $59 for each student in the state – “the stimulus package saved that,” Patalan said. But federal stimulus dollars are only a short-term aid – the district still has to balance the budget, she said, while costs are rising and revenues are flat. She said she’s grateful for the stimulus money, but the state needs to find a way to fund education appropriately. She did not address the merit pay issue.

Financial Background

What challenges does the district face financially? What business and financial skills do you bring to the table?

Nelson: Nelson is an economic consultant, and much of his work focuses on Social Security reform. He suggested that people could Google “Glenn Nelson” and “Social Security” to see examples of his work. (We did, and came up with a policy brief comparing rural and urban communities, among other reports.) As for the budget, “we’re challenged,” Nelson said. If spending is kept at the same levels, the district faces a $6 million deficit in 2010, which grows to $9 million in 2011 and $12 million by 2012. (See Chronicle coverage of an AAPS budget forum in March.) As state aid declines, the community needs to take more responsibility for funding schools, he said. That’s why he supports a countywide enhancement millage, which local districts are discussing.

Patalan: Her background as a small business owner gives her experience in dealing with financial issues, Patalan said. She said the budget is the district’s biggest challenge, and they need to consider asking voters to support an enhancement millage. Other groups, like the AAPS Education Foundation and the Michigan Parents for Schools, which is based in Ann Arbor, are working to find solutions, too. “It’s not just the board – it’s all of us,” she said.

Nigam: The district has to both live within its means and seek other funding sources, Nigam said – they can’t count on the state for increased funding. In addition to considering a countywide enhancement millage, he suggested holding regular fundraisers, similar to those held by National Public Radio. His experience working for a large computer manufacturer during a time of downsizing gave him perspective on working with dwindling resources. The important thing is to focus on the district’s core mission of education.

Achievement Gap

Is the achievement gap racial or economic? How can the district successfully address this problem?

Patalan: They’ve been talking about the achievement gap for at least 20 years, Patalan noted. The district’s strategic plan is achievement gap-oriented, she said, trying to address the problem early. She’s pleased with the focus that AAPS has placed on reading, for example, through its Read 180 program. They’ve been courageous in starting conversations about equity, Patalan said, but biases are still holding some students back.

Nigam: The achievement gap has both racial and socio-economic causes, Nigam said. Everyone has to be involved in addressing it, he said, but the onus is on parents and students to take advantage of the resources that are available to them.

Nelson: In the early 1990s, Nelson was on the district’s equity audit committee, and noted that it was his first volunteer experience with AAPS. Though the gap disproportionately affects low-income African American and Hispanic students, there are a lot of white students struggling too, he said, and even students from middle- and upper-income families. The district needs to identify and work with any students who are struggling academically, he said. They’ve made some progress, but are a long way from closing the gap.

Ten-Year Vision for AAPS

What’s your vision for the district in 10 years?

Nigam: The district is starting from a good foundation, but Nigam would like to see more progress in addressing graduation rates and the achievement gap. They’ll face challenges in the economy and changing technology, but need to keep providing a broad-based education so that students will be able to perform in the economy and in the country as citizens.

Nelson: The district should provide continued excellence in education, where students get the kind of experience that launches them into a fruitful life, Nelson said, no matter what their interests. Ann Arbor should be known as a place where every student has access to that excellence, and aren’t excluded because of their family’s income or background.

Patalan: Noting that she was part of a team that helped write the district’s strategic plan, Patalan said that plan was a good guide for the future. They need to continue partnering with the University of Michigan – an example was the world language program that launched last year, she said. The goal is to have healthy, happy, challenged children who can ask the right questions, she said, so that as a society, we can take care of each other.

One final note: An explanation

This election, two seats carry four-year terms, while the third seat is for a two-year term. Here’s why: In 2003, voters approved a plan to switch the board from a 9-member group elected to three-year terms, phasing it into a board with seven members serving four-year terms. Since 2003, the board has been making that transition, but this is the last election in which a member will be elected to a shorter term (Ravi Nigam is running for the two-year position). Starting with the May 2010 election, all terms will be for four years.

This year, the league is asking Chronicle readers to help come up with questions for the board candidates.

On Monday, April 20 at 7 p.m., league members will interview incumbents Glenn Nelson and Irene Patalan, who are running for two four-year terms. Because their race is uncontested, the format for that CTN broadcast will be a Q&A, according to Jeanine Delay of the League of Women Voters.

On Thursday, April 23 at 7 p.m., the league will host a debate between Adam J. Hollier and Ravi Nigam. They are running for a two-year term, to fill the seat currently held by board president Karen Cross, who is not seeking reelection.

Each of the broadcasts will last 30 minutes. More information about the board and its responsibilities can be found here.

If you have suggestions for questions to board candidates, 1) leave a comment here, or 2) go to the league’s website and click on “Contact us” – there you’ll find a link to email league members. The deadline for submitting questions is Wednesday, April 15.

In Ann Arbor, there are no other races for public office or ballots proposals for the May 5 election. Information for other municipalities is on the Washtenaw County clerk’s website.

As a reminder, April 6 is the last day to register for the May 5 election. Ann Arbor voters can get more information about registering to vote from  the Ann Arbor city clerk’s site.