From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) at the July 13 interviews with two finalists for the city administrator job. Higgins is chair of the council search committee.

For their 10-minute presentations, Oppenheim and Powers had been asked to talk about what they’d try to accomplish in their first 90 days on the job. They covered much of the same ground that they’d discussed during Tuesday’s round-robin interviews with councilmembers and senior staff, talking about how they’d familiarize themselves with the organization and the community of Ann Arbor. [See detailed Chronicle coverage of those Tuesday sessions for Powers and Oppenheim.]

When asked during the Q&A to describe the most challenging part of their presentation, both joked that it was handling PowerPoint – Oppenheim had difficulty advancing the slides and eventually enlisted the aid of a city staffer, and Powers’ presentation included a blank slide, because he couldn’t figure out how to insert the image he wanted to use. Powers also noted that it was difficult to know how much of his sense of humor to show in this context – his wife, for example, had advised him to delete some slides that he’d included.

Seven of the 11 councilmembers were on hand for the presentations and follow-up questions: Mayor John Hieftje, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Steve Kunselman (Ward 3), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The other four councilmembers are expected to watch a video of the session prior to Monday’s council meeting. There will be a resolution on the July 18 agenda to nominate a candidate, but no name will be added to the resolution until the evening of the meeting.

Higgins, who’s chair of the search committee, told her council colleagues that on Monday a candidate will be nominated, a discussion of that nomination will take place, and hopefully the council will arrive at a consensus, she said. Or it’s possible that councilmembers will decide they don’t yet have an acceptable candidate, she added, and the process will continue.

However, based on a nearly hour-long discussion on Wednesday among councilmembers, it seems that a consensus is coalescing in favor of Powers – though both finalists were praised. Powers’ management style and familiarity with Michigan’s economy and governance structure were among the reasons cited by those councilmembers who are leaning toward hiring him.

This report briefly summarizes the presentations of Powers and Oppenheim, as well as the questions they were asked on Wednesday morning. The discussion among councilmembers at the end of the session is reported in detail.

Candidate Presentations, Questions

The two finalists gave their presentations and answered questions separately – Steve Powers went first, followed an hour later by Ellie Oppenheim. Per the council’s request, the presentations focused on what the candidates would do during their first 90 days on the job. The sessions were held in the council chambers at city hall, and were broadcast live on Community Television Network (CTN).

Candidate Presentations: Steve Powers

Powers spoke about his desire to familiarize himself with the organization and the community, saying he would immerse himself in that task. He said he knows that the community values process and transparency, and that people have strong opinions – he’d learn to appreciate and understand that. Acknowledging the city’s assets and quality of life, Powers described some of the challenges that Ann Arbor is facing – declining revenues, fewer staff resources, higher costs for health care and pensions, and aging infrastructure, among other things. Showing an image of a duck swimming in water, Powers asked whether the city is like that – calm on the surface, but paddling like crazy underneath.

Powers told councilmembers that he wouldn’t come in with his guns blazing – the “ready, fire, aim” approach isn’t effective, he said. Rather, he’ll talk with councilmembers and others in the community and listen to what their priorities are. For example, he’d likely start in the fall, so his first 90 days would put him into the heart of the next budget cycle – labor negotiations and understanding the needs of employees and management would be critical. His approach would be to “communicate, communicate, communicate” – he’s found that to be successful over the years in Marquette County, where he currently serves as county administrator. Ann Arbor is too complex to assume he could understand those complexities quickly, he said.

“My actions in the first 90 days would confirm that you made the best choice for city administrator,” Powers said, “and that choice is me.”

Candidate Presentations: Ellie Oppenheim

Oppenheim identified five priorities for her first 90 days. First, she’d start fostering important relationships – with councilmembers and staff, but also with community leaders from the university, library, Ann Arbor SPARK, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, merchant groups and others. That would set the foundation for future relationships. Secondly, she’d learn the lay of the land within the organization, including budget forecasts, memorandums of understanding with labor, infrastructure needs, and any emerging issues.

Community engagement would be important, too. She’d make herself as accessible as possible – for example, attending a game at Michigan Stadium with 109,900 of her “new friends,” she said as she held up a University of Michigan T-shirt. She’d visit the surrounding communities of Saline, Dexter and Chelsea, and would be a frequent customer at local businesses and restaurants. Her fourth priority would be to foster collaboration, building bridges to maximize connections at the county, state and federal levels.

Finally, Oppenheim said all those things would accelerate her learning curve, giving her a framework to meet the council’s expectations and the community’s needs. At the same time, she’d stay personally grounded by her two pillars of stress management: getting regular exercise, and planning her next vacation – she looked forward to a trip at Thanksgiving to visit her family. She thanked councilmembers for their consideration.

Candidate Presentations: Questions from Council

Following their presentations, each finalist was asked the same set of nine questions by councilmembers. Several of the questions related to the presentations – what had been most challenging about preparing them, for example – and more broadly about whether the candidates were comfortable speaking in public, or publicly discussing controversial topics. Questions also covered other types of communication, eliciting details about the ways in which Powers and Oppenheim would seek input and convey information in different contexts.

Many of the candidates’ responses repeated themes and examples that they had provided during round-robin interviews on Tuesday morning. Readers can find detailed Chronicle accounts of those interviews here: Steve Powers; Ellie Oppenheim.

Consultant Feedback, Council Discussion

After hearing from the candidates, councilmembers were debriefed by Scott Reilly of Affion Public, the consultants hired to help conduct the search. Councilmembers then discussed the two candidates for about a half hour before adourning.

Reilly said he’d met with the city’s executive staff – including city attorney Stephen Postema and Barnett Jones, head of public safety services, who both had participated in Tuesday’s interviews – to get feedback on the candidates. Reilly summarized key strengths identified by the executive staff for each candidate.

Ellie Oppenheim, a finalist for Ann Arbor city administrator, talks with Scott Reilly, a consultant with Affion Public, the firm hired by city council to help conduct the job search.

The executive staff found that Oppenheim was very articulate, and a good communicator. They liked that she has diverse experience in large organizations – that’s a valuable asset that she could bring to the city. She also has high energy. “She was described as a pistol,” Reilly said. The executive staff felt that Oppenheim was results-oriented, and seemed comfortable in a leadership role.

For Powers, the executive staff liked the fact that he gave very specific examples in response to behavioral questions, Reilly reported. They felt his responses were very thoughtful and down to earth, and that he was candid and straightforward. They liked his answers about how he communicates. Stylistically, that way of communication seemed natural for him – it wasn’t something he learned in a book.

The executive staff also appreciated Powers’ management style and approach, which would be good for team-building. Though running a county is different than being a city administrator, the county board of commissioners is similar in size to the city council, and Powers’ experience collaborating with department heads would be an asset. Lastly, his specific experience with finance and economic development in Michigan’s current climate was something the executive staff valued as well, Reilly said.

In addition to this feedback, Reilly said the candidates were holding a meet-and-greet for city staff that morning. He planned to collect input from that, as well as from the councilmembers.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the staff had raised any alarms about either candidate. Reilly replied that the executive staff recognized there wouldn’t be a perfect candidate – there never is. The two candidates had different styles, and would be different in their approach to getting things done. The staff recognizes that there’s going to be a change, regardless of who’s hired, Reilly said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Reilly to review the search process so far. [The council voted to hire Affion in April 2011, based on a recommendation from the search committee led by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The firm is being paid a fee of $18,000.]

Reilly described how he and other Affion staff had spent several days in Ann Arbor meeting with the council and staff, and holding public forums to get input on the qualities that the community wanted in its next city administrator. The consultants then went through the recruiting process – proactively contacting people who might be a good fit but who weren’t actively seeking jobs, as well as getting responses to a job posting that was up for about 50 days.

Affion interviewed all candidates who met the minimum qualifications, then scheduled formal interviews with a subset of that group. The candidates were asked for written responses to questions, including why they were interested in this job, what experiences they’ve had in building community consensus, and how they’ve handled finances in a tight economy. There was another round of interviews based on the written responses, then a fourth round with Reilly, who said he was looking to see if candidates would be a good fit for the Ann Arbor community and the organization. The firm also conducted criminal, educational and media background checks, and checked references. From about 60 applicants, Affion winnowed the pool down to 8-10, from which councilmembers chose two finalists. The rest of the process has been public, he said.

Council Discussion – Process

After Reilly’s summary, Higgins told her colleagues that they’d discuss the rating sheets that each councilmember filled out, but they wouldn’t make a nomination at that point. There will be a resolution on the council’s July 18 agenda to nominate a candidate, she said, but no name would be added to the resolution until that meeting. This will give councilmembers who didn’t participate in the interviews time to watch the tape of Wednesday’s presentations, she said. [Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) did not attend the candidate interview sessions on Tuesday or Wednesday.]

At Monday’s council meeting, a candidate will be nominated, a discussion of that nomination will take place, and hopefully councilmembers will arrive at a consensus, Higgins said. Or it’s possible that they’ll decide they don’t yet have an acceptable candidate, she added, and the process will continue.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wondered how appropriate it was to put forward a candidate’s name, if in the end the council can’t reach consensus. He said he was looking at it both from the applicants’ perspective as well as a procedural perspective. What message does that convey to the public?

Higgins said that was the point of this discussion. Councilmembers would either see one of the candidates clearly rising and consensus building around that person, “or we won’t.” It’s difficult for candidates and councilmembers to hold this evaluation in a public forum, she said. Not every candidate will have only positive attributes, but councilmembers need to be respectful in their discussion, and make their views known in as positive a way as possible. Which candidate has the better qualities?

Mayor John Hieftje clarified that the rating sheets were only used to evaluate two aspects – the candidate’s presentation, and the interview.

For the purposes of this report, comments from Wednesday’s discussion are organized by councilmember.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Sabra Briere

Briere noted that these two candidates are very different in style, and in their ability to answer questions quickly and thoroughly. She had asked a question about which previous positions they had held that related most closely to the city administrator’s position, and why. Both candidates gave thorough answers, Briere said, but Powers drilled down to precise examples quickly, without much prompting. And in a later conversation, he had grasped some of the challenges that Ann Arbor is facing now, and saw those not just as challenges, but as opportunities. That’s a positive thing for her, Briere said.

Mayor John Hieftje talks with Ellie Oppenheim, a finalist for the Ann Arbor city administrator job.

It was clear that he’s not as comfortable giving a public presentation, and not as polished as a public speaker, Briere observed. But she thought his ability to communicate was better in small groups and one-on-one. When he relaxed, he was clearly very knowledgeable and comfortable.

Briere also liked the fact that he’s data driven. He can look at situations from a high level, but also identify practical steps to take. She felt that Oppenheim would be a more dynamic leader, and more open to the challenges of implementing innovation and change. But she gave Powers slightly higher marks. It was hard, because both candidates got high marks, she said.

Both Powers and Oppenheim worked hard to understand Ann Arbor, Briere said. She was impressed with Oppenheim’s presentation, with very specific information about Ann Arbor. That showed Briere that Oppenheim had spent time doing her homework. Powers had looked at Ann Arbor’s economy, and understood the pressures on it. Both candidates recognized that they need to engage the community in a variety of ways, Briere said. In an earlier conversation, Powers had brought up the fact that economic development doesn’t currently have a coherent focus within the city government, and he asked if councilmembers wanted that effort more in the hands of the city. That was an interesting question to bring forward, Briere said.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Marcia Higgins

Higgins agreed with Briere’s observations, especially regarding public speaking. When Powers shared that he only makes formal presentations about six times a year, that helped her understand why he might feel uncomfortable. He’s very knowledgeable, and when he is focused on one person, Higgins said, his communication skills amplify considerably.

She said she enjoyed being able to choose between two highly qualified candidates. They had two very different ways of presenting publicly. To her, it’s a question of who fits best with the community. “And that’s a decision we’ll be making Monday night.”

Higgins reported that both candidates were very close in her ratings. Powers ranked just a little higher. That has a lot to do with the trust he talks about – building trust with elected officials and department heads, working collaboratively, and owning up to his failures. She was impressed when he acknowledged a shortcoming, and that he could clearly articulate what he’d learned from his mistakes. Higgins said she also appreciated that Oppenheim could think quickly on her feet – that trait was evident from situations that Oppenheim described during Tuesday’s interviews, she said.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Stephen Rapundalo

Rapundalo felt that Powers made his points much more quickly, and answered questions more directly. Powers engaged people well in formal and informal settings – he wore his role and his background on his sleeve. Yes, he was less polished, Rapundalo said, but “what you see is what you get.” His ability to transcend various types of people seemed more apparent, more natural in terms of his style. What the city lacked in the past was someone who could really engage in the community, Rapundalo said. Powers would bring that as an asset.

Rapundalo indicated that the candidates were very close, but in the end, he said he’d give Powers the nod. The fact that Powers is data driven is “near and dear to my heart,” Rapundalo said, though it could be done to a fault “as some people keep reminding me.” Reilly had mentioned that the executive staff likes Powers’ financial background, Rapundalo noted, but his human resources background is also important, especially in contract negotiations. That’s a clear asset, Rapundalo said.

It’s not that Oppenheim didn’t have that experience too, Rapundalo added, but the expertise was more apparent with Powers. His knowledge about Michigan’s economic landscape is also important, Rapundalo said. It’s not the only reason to hire Powers, but it’s an advantage. Different dynamics are at play in the state and in Ann Arbor, and the city administrator will need to maneuver in that environment. It takes quite a learning curve to do that, Rapundalo said – it’s not something you can pick up in 90 days, or even a year.

He recalled Powers saying that once the council makes the policy decision, the city administrator will execute it – and it should be done in a unified manner. That’s key, Rapundalo said, and he hadn’t heard that stated before. It’s a thoughtful approach for managing and communicating – something that the council places high value on.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Mike Anglin

Both candidates were very close in their ability to express who they are, Anglin said, and there are very clear differences between them. They have different leadership styles, and the scale they’ve worked at was different – one of them, for example, worked at large organizations, where there weren’t major budget constraints. The question is who would fit best in Ann Arbor.

Steve Powers, left, a finalist for the Ann Arbor city administrator job, talks with Ward 5 councilmember Mike Anglin in the city council chambers on Wednesday.

Powers made a point that he’d only worked in situations where an organization was contracting, Anglin said, and that made an impression. That’s where Ann Arbor finds itself. Yet Powers spoke to what the city has to offer – Powers was very buoyant, Anglin said. Ann Arbor residents view themselves as far from defeated, and Powers understands that.

Powers also spoke about driving down decision-making – everyone is important to the organization, including front line employees. Powers has experience in government, staying with an organization over a long period. He helped turn around the local economy when many said it wasn’t possible, Anglin noted. Overall, Anglin found the match for Ann Arbor was stronger in Powers.

Regarding their presentations to councilmembers, Anglin said he rated both candidates evenly. Both currently have jobs that require them to be good comunicators. Anglin said there were certain words that the candidates used that influenced him. With Powers, it was the “ready, fire, aim” concept – describing a common approach that Powers felt should be avoided. Both candidates worked in university communities, both presented a code of ethics, and both said they could take orders and implement decisions, Anglin noted – that was terrific to hear. The fit is close, Anglin concluded, but he’s leaning toward Powers.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: John Hieftje

Hieftje said he was pleased that either candidate could do the job. That’s always a good sign. There were striking differences in background and decision-making – two completely different styles. Hieftje said he saw very narrow differences between the two, and it was a close call. He wanted to think about those styles over the next few days, and think about what would be a good fit. “I still have a lot of thinking to do over the weekend,” he said.

He reminded his council colleagues that it was their job to make policy decisions. The important decisions for a city administrator will have a lot to do with staff, he said, and that will be determined by small group or one-on-one communication and assessment. That’s a big part of the administrator’s role. It’s harder for councilmembers to assess that one-on-one style, but it’s very important, as is the ability to lead a competent staff.

Regarding Wednesday’s presentations, Hieftje said that one candidate had better presentation skills – he didn’t mention which candidate – but that his scoring of their skills was very close.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Stephen Kunselman

Like his council colleagues, Kunselman observed that both candidates are qualified. A lot of people from the West Coast live in Ann Arbor, he observed, as do people originally from northern Michigan. [Most of Oppenheim's previous experience has been in California and Nevada, while Powers has spent the past 15 years in Marquette – in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.] The thing that struck Kunselman most was when Powers said he had the trust and respect of his board, which has four of the original nine county commissioners who hired him. That’s telling, Kunselman said, when you can gain the trust and respect of officials who didn’t hire you. It shows an ability to truly work with the community and elected officials that have divergent constituencies.

Continuity in government is very important, Kunselman said. Things don’t get accomplished in a short period. The question about Oppenheim is whether she has the ability to work long-term with elected officials.

Kunselman was also impressed that Powers took a risk of not having notes for his presentation. [Powers told councilmembers that he'd left his notes at the hotel, and had decided not to retrieve them.] It showed Powers’ ability to think on his feet – we all find ourselves in that position, Kunselman said. For her part, Oppenheim was very informative, and had a different style, Kunselman said, but her presentation was more scripted. Both worked well, Kunselman said, but personally he thought the candidate who took a risk was the person who impressed him.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Tony Derezinski

These two candidates presented classic alternatives, Derezinski said. One candidate had worked for larger entities, but never led one. [Oppenheim has worked in significantly larger organizations than Powers has. Most recently she was CEO of Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority – the top leadership role for that organization.] The other candidate is a person who’s been with an organization for long period, who’s the person where the buck stopped, Derezinski said. A lot of Oppenheim’s experiences are very valuable, he said, especially in an academic community. But Marquette – where Powers works – is also an academic community, he noted.

Looking at the two presentations, Derezinski noted that one style covered a lot of different points (Oppenheim), while the other was minimalist (Powers). But listening is important – given those two styles, in which style is listening more important? That’s critical, Derezinski said, because you can learn so much more from listening than from speaking. Is there a dialogue? That’s critical in terms of picking up nuances of what others are saying, and working that into your decision-making. Derezinski indicated that there were a lot of issues to weigh as he considered these candidates.

Next Steps

Four councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – did not participate in the interviews on Tuesday or Wednesday, though Hohnke attended a Tuesday evening reception for the candidates. As the Wednesday morning discussion wrapped up, mayor John Hieftje said the four who didn’t attend had good reasons for not participating. Hieftje did not elaborate on that, but said the four absent councilmembers would be able to watch the video of Wednesday’s presentations and discussion prior to Monday’s council meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d been in touch with Smith to brief her as much as possible – hopefully everyone was trying to do that for the councilmembers who didn’t attend, she said. [Smith is recovering from surgery.] Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that everyone had received the same materials on the candidates, even if they hadn’t attended the interviews.

Wednesday morning’s session will be replayed several times on Community Television Network (CTN) Channel 16 prior to Monday evening’s council meeting:

• Friday, July 15 at 1:30 p.m.
• Saturday, July 16 at 7 p.m.
• Sunday, July 17 at 5 p.m.
• Monday, July 18 at 10 a.m.

The session will also be available from CTN’s video on demand service.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public organizations like the city of Ann Arbor government. 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!

Ellie Oppenheim, one of two finalists for the Ann Arbor city administrator job, during an interview with city councilmembers on July 12.

Conducting the interviews were councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, city attorney Stephen Postema and Barnett Jones, head of safety services. Each had been given briefing books prepared by the city’s human resources staff and consultants with Affion Public, a search firm hired by the city. The three panels consisted of (1) Briere, Rapundalo and Postema; (2) Hieftje, Higgins and Kunselman; and (3) Anglin, Derezinski and Jones.

Questions were essentially read aloud as scripts from these prepared materials to ensure uniformity of the interviewing experience. One or two questions were fairly general, for example: What do you think makes a good leader? But the majority were behavioral: Tell us about a time when your leadership skills were put to the test and what the outcome was.

The interviews were part of a two-day process, and included a lunch on Tuesday with staff and a public reception on Tuesday evening at the new municipal center, which featured five-minute presentations from each candidate, as well as time for informal conversations. On Wednesday, the finalists will be interviewed in city council chambers from 8 a.m. to noon. That session, which is open to the public, will also be videotaped and broadcast live on Channel 16 to allow viewing of the interviews by councilmembers and the public who are not able to attend.

It’s possible that a resolution making the appointment could be on the council’s July 18 agenda.

The Chronicle sat in on all interviews held Tuesday morning. This article reports on the responses by Oppenheim; a separate article describes how Powers responded to the interview questions. Because candidates often offered similar examples as answers to different sets of questions, their responses are summarized thematically.

Brief Background

Until earlier this year, Oppenheim was president and chief executive officer of the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA), a position she’d held since 2006. In that capacity, she was responsible for leading the regional destination marketing organization promoting tourism and convention business for Reno, Sparks and Incline Village/North Lake Tahoe.

When asked by a councilmember to describe the RSCVA, Oppenheim said the organization is unique in many ways, with three major responsibilities. It handles marketing and promotion, a traditional role for convention and visitors bureaus. In addition, RSCVA owns or operates the major public assembly facilities in the region, including the convention center, a 27-hole golf complex, a bowling center, a livestock events center, a major performing arts center, and a visitor center at Lake Tahoe. The group also collects, disperses and audits the area’s hotel room tax, which accounts for about two-thirds of RSCVA’s budget. As CEO, Oppenheim said she oversaw all these operations, reporting directly to a 13-member board that included five elected officials and eight others who were appointed by various agencies, including the region’s hotel/motel association.

Oppenheim resigned from that job in February. According to a report in the Reno Gazette-Journal, she cited a need for more time to take care of her mother in Texas, who was ill – she mentioned that decision during her interviews on Tuesday. The Gazette-Journal reports that under terms of her contract, she remains on the RSCVA payroll until Aug. 10. Her salary in that position is $234,000.

Preceding her resignation, Oppenheim received criticism for her handling of an event involving the American International Choral Festival early this year: “Possible RSCVA Miscalculation Could Cost Local Economy Millions.” Members of the Ann Arbor city council search committee were reportedly not apprised of this negative publicity, and neither councilmembers nor Oppenheim mentioned that situation during Tuesday’s interviews.

Before leading RSCVA, Oppenheim worked for the City of San Diego, Calif. from 2002-2006 in various roles, including the deputy city chief operating officer and deputy city manager, and as the director of the parks and recreation department. She was general manager of the Los Angeles department of recreation & parks from 1999-2002, and served as vice president/general manager for GES Exposition Services in South San Francisco from 1996-1999.

Describing herself during Tuesday’s interviews as the daughter of two academics, Oppenheim has lived and worked in other university towns. She had various roles at Stanford University from 1977-1987, including the associate dean of students and the director of the Tresidder Memorial Union. From 1973-1977 she worked for the University of Wisconsin-Madison as the Memorial Union operations manager and mini course director.

Experience, Examples of Leadership

In her most recent role, Oppenheim said she led an effort to create a new market segmentation study that evolved into a new branding campaign. The goal was to differentiate the Reno-Sparks area from myriad competitors. If you look at travel magazines and lay out all the ads on a table, she said, you could cover up the names of the cities, and each destination would look the same – Idaho would look like Maine. Her group worked on a research-based effort to find out what motivated visitors, and what they believed was important when they made their travel decisions. The effort developed into a new brand for the Reno-Sparks area, complete with an animal spokesperson – a bighorn sheep. It was fun, humorous, and definitely distinctive, she said. It was intended to attract more visitors and bring more tourist dollars to the area.

In the Los Angeles recreation & parks department, its biggest challenge was a serious gang problem, Oppenheim said. She worked closely with the mayor – it was a strong mayor form of government at the time, she noted – and he was supportive of quality recreation programs. Parks had been taken over by gang-related activities, and she led an effort to develop a program called CLASS (Clean and Safe Spaces) Parks, focused on middle school kids. The program had a modest amount of funding, which was used to install a new children’s play area in each of the city’s 56 recreation centers. The program also spruced up the centers – painting, installing new carpet, buying used furniture – and reached out to the community to bring back community advisory boards.

On the program side, the department took a frequent-flyer approach, Oppenheim said. The more you participated, the more points you accumulated toward reward events – going to a Dodgers baseball game, for example, or to a performance of the Lion King. Organizers used it as a teaching moment, she said. They’d talk about what it means to go to theater, for example – what you wear, when to clap. The program gave kids choices other than joining gangs. “I think we made a difference, one person at a time.” It was creative, innovative and fairly successful, she said.

Oppenheim gave two examples when asked to describe a time that her leadership was put to the test.

Los Angeles is a large and diverse community, with an enormous recreation & parks system, Oppenheim said. When she arrived as general manager, the recreation & parks department was divided into three geographic areas that in many ways operated like individual fiefdoms. The system’s 13 golf courses were buried in different parts of the system. Each of the three area managers, who all reported to her, had different strengths. One was strong in recreational programming, another one had maintenance expertise and the third was a good administrator. But the golf program was suffering from a complete lack of attention, because none of the key staff had golf expertise. And the performance across the three sectors was very uneven, she said.

After thinking a lot about it and talking with staff and others, she proposed a reorganization – combining the three regions under one manager, and adopting the best practices of each. Additionally, she put the golf courses into a separate program. Predictably, the plan met with great resistance from the three managers, because they were losing a lot of power. One of them had applied for the job she’d been hired to fill, and soon it was clear that he was trying to undermine this new approach. She eventually had to sit down and talk to him, telling him to take off a week and think about what he wanted to do. When he returned, he had decided to stay and make the change, and he put his heart into it, she said.

One of the other managers really struggled, however, and eventually decided to leave. Doing things differently sometimes makes people uncomfortable, Oppenheim said. But six months after the reorganization, people were overwhelmingly supportive, she said.

A second example involved the the Greek Theatre in L.A.’s Griffith Park. Shortly before she arrived, the city council had accepted an unsolicited offer by Nederlander Concerts to extend the firm’s management contract of that facility. There was a great hue and cry from community members and competitors because the city didn’t go out to bid, she said. A major competitor threatened to sue, so the council rescinded its award and directed her to issue a request for proposals. She and her staff developed the RFP, making sure it was bulletproof. They got proposals from the House of Blues and as well as Nederlander.

She and her staff worked with an advisory panel to evaluate the proposals, and consulted with attorneys. They did a comprehensive financial analysis, and worked closely with both applicants. The House of Blues proposal had a more generous capital commitment, but both had the programming skills to operate the facility. It was a very competitive situation, she said – the two firms spent $750,000 on lobbying city officials over the contract, so she knew her recommendation needed to be solid. The recommendation she proposed was for the House of Blues, but the recreation & parks commission ultimately voted to award it to Nederlander. Despite the challenging situation, Oppenheim said both firms felt the process had been fair, and that she and her staff had handled it well.

Oppenheim gave different examples when asked to describe her greatest career achievement.

When she arrived in San Diego to head the parks & recreation department, on the first day the deputy city manager told her that there were about 140 capital projects that were all behind schedule, and she needed to fix that. She soon learned that the projects were also underfunded, and that the staff didn’t have a sense of urgency about it. There were no tools to track progress.

Oppenheim said she started using a tool that assigned every capital project a score based on timing and budget. It was a traffic light analogy – if the project was on budget and on time, it got a green light. Dangerously off track projects got red lights. Yellow lights were warnings. She met with each councilmember to review each project and its problems – the council cared, because parks were a big indicator of community satisfaction, just at they are in Ann Arbor, she said. The method helped them prioritize, and within a year things were back on track.

In San Jose, she was involved in managing a convention center that was intended to be an anchor for downtown development. She was asked to figure out how to measure its success, so she talked with the council, chamber of commerce, hoteliers, and others to develop benchmarks. Based on that input, she developed a tool that measured occupancy rates, attendance at events, and the number of hotel room nights – because the center was intended to bring visitors to town. The conventions center ultimately achieved one of best occupancy and financial performances in the nation, Oppenheim said, with occupancy at almost 77%. The center was transformed from an empty building into one of the nation’s best performers. Before that, San Jose had not been known as a convention destination, she said.

Communication, Management Style

Oppenheim described herself as motivated and driven, saying that often she’s the one who’s pushing to get things done. She tends to be proactive. During the recent economic downturn, as a leader she was out front, she said, trying to anticipate what was ahead. In December of 2008, revenues from the hotel room tax dropped, she recalled, seemingly out of the blue. January and February of 2009 weren’t bad, but March was down – they had a problem. Oppenheim said she catalyzed the RSCVA staff and board to look at best case/worst case scenarios. As they started to develop their budget – for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009 – they knew that revenues would be contracting for the coming year, and they made adjustments. But soon after the start of the new fiscal year, summer numbers started rolling in and tax revenue was down even more than expected. That included both corporate visits and visits from California residents, which accounted for about 60% of overall revenue.

Rather than wait until the end of the year, Oppenheim said she decided to recalibrate the budget and respond to the downturn. If she had waited, she said, then the choices would have been draconian. In August significant budget adjustments were made, eliminating some programs and reducing some positions – mostly jobs that were already vacant, she said. Some people advised her to wait, but she didn’t. By December, things were worse, and it looked like she had made the right call. Oppenheim said she’s good at identifying issues, being proactive and helping an organization make decisions to address the problem.

Oppenheim said she likes to hear all sides of an issue and gather different perspectives. She wants staff to speak up and share their views. As staff, their role is to put forward their best advice to the elected policymakers. The city council’s role is to weigh that advice, and councilmembers may decide to take a path that’s different from the staff recommendation. Then it’s the city administrator’s job, along with staff, to deliver on that decision and implement it. That’s fine, she said – once it’s decided, it needs to go forward and made to happen. Often there have been situations when she’s discussed choices with her staff, but she knows that ultimately she’s the one who needs to choose the path to take. Then, she needs to pull together the organization to get behind that decision.

When she was a department head, there were times when the position she supported didn’t prevail. “I’m a good soldier at that point, and I’ll get behind it and make it work.”

In one interview session, Oppenheim was asked to give an example of a poor decision she’d made that hadn’t turned out well. She cited the time when she worked in San Jose, where the city operated the San Jose Historical Museum in Kelley Park. It’s a wonderful place, she said, with close to 100,000 visitors each year. At the time, the museum was at a crossroads. It had a strong volunteer cadre, but a nonprofit organization thought they could run it better. The nonprofit’s leaders approached her and the city council. She didn’t understand the internal politics, Oppenheim said, and ultimately the city turned the museum over to the nonprofit.

The volunteers became disenfranchised, and the staff felt undervalued and unloved. The museum didn’t improve, she said, and looking back, there might have been other ways to better support the organization without the acrimony that played out in the transition. There was a personality clash between the museum director and the director of the nonprofit, she said, and as a result, the decision to turn it over to the nonprofit didn’t propel the museum forward in ways they had envisioned. She said she wished she’d seen that coming, and had better understood the dynamics behind it. It was hard after that to put the museum back on track.

When asked what makes a good leader, Oppenheim said a leader is someone who can motivate and inspire, with a sense of vision. Yet it’s hard to be a good leader without also being a good manager. It’s one thing to fly at 50,000 feet, she said, but you also have to translate that vision into action and to work effectively with key leaders in an organization. She looks at her role as an orchestra leader. She has to pick the music and pace, in conjunction with council and staff, but it takes the whole group to play a symphony. Her job is to help people see that they play an important role that’s critical to the effectiveness of the organization and to the health of the community. She said she tries to listen and to keep people informed, whether it’s good news or a heads up on bad news. Letting people know about bad news gives them the chance to cope and strategize, Oppenheim said, both individually and as a team.

Oppenheim was also asked how she boosted low morale in her staff. In the short term, there are a range of strategies, she said, from buying pizza for lunch to giving people a half-day off. It’s more difficult when there’s a prolonged situation – when resources are declining, and jobs are eliminated. It’s hard on the organization and on survivors who aren’t laid off. It’s important to take time to bring people together to talk about what’s happening, to share your vision, and tell them there’s a game plan – to say, “We’ll get past this and it will get better.” People need to celebrate successes, and recognize that things take time to improve, she said.

At the RSCVA, the staff held an annual summer family activity at the local water park for a day. They also took staff outings to the new baseball park and the bowling stadium. These were low-cost ways to boost morale, she said.

Building Relationships

Oppenheim was asked to describe how she built relationships within the community. She cited an example from her tenure in L.A., when a school official decided not to renew a joint use agreement that the city’s recreation & parks department had in place for after-school programs. Oppenheim’s staff told her there weren’t any alternative locations in that neighborhood. After doing some research, she discovered there were several ways the parks department was assisting the school district – providing maintenance and other services, for example. Oppenheim said she wasn’t sure if the school official was aware of that.

When they sat down for a meeting, the official started by rejecting the joint use agreement again, saying it was a hassle. She asked him to take a step back and look at other ways that they were already working together – looking at the broader context. After about an hour, he completely changed his attitude, she said. He recognized that there were things he hadn’t considered, she said, and that frankly, the parks department had more cards in the game. They ended up renewing their agreement, she said.

Oppenheim cited another example from L.A. concerning a facility that the recreation & parks department acquired. It was in a hilly area that the environmental community thought should be preserved as it was. But a mountain biking group wanted to use it for trails. The two groups were ready to kill each other, Oppenheim said, but during about six months of meetings, she and her staff managed to moderate the discussions and carve out a reasonable plan that ultimately both sides could live with. In the end, both groups felt that their general principles were honored, she said.

During Tuesday’s interviews, Oppenheim gave other examples of working with others in the community. At the RSCVA, some of her staff urged her to take the board on a retreat to write the strategic plan, Oppenheim said, rather than do community outreach. But that approach wouldn’t result in community ownership of the plan, she said. It wouldn’t have any “stick-to-it-iveness” – to get that requires input from multiple groups, so that different parts of the community will buy into the plan.

Citing another example, Oppenheim said that part of her reorganization of the L.A. recreation & parks department evolved because of input from the golf advisory board. They explained to her that the courses were a multimillion-dollar system that was undervalued and under-resourced. She listened to those voices, and incorporated their ideas into her reorganization. She also talked to the golf staff – she said she’s a terrible golfer, but went out to play anyway to talk to staff. It’s important to keep your ear to the ground and listen in different kinds of settings.

Communities will increasingly expect and demand collaboration from government, Oppenheim said. As an example of her efforts in that area, when she joined RSCVA, there wasn’t much of a relationship between that entity and the Reno airport. She developed that relationship, and worked closely with the airport director to attract business and conventions to the area. They also worked together to try to persuade airlines to offer more flights to Reno. That resulted in increased flights and more business than they would otherwise have had, she said.

Oppenheim cited another example from her job in L.A., where she was point person working with school districts and crafting dozens of joint use agreements. Those agreements allowed the recreation & parks department to use school properties after school and on weekends for community park use – otherwise, those facilities would have been locked up after hours. In return, the recreation & parks department helped with maintenance and in some cases capital projects.

Residents don’t care if the city, county or state provides parks services, Oppenheim said – they just want the service. The burden will be on all governments to share services, to find opportunities for consolidation to achieve more efficiencies, and to take advantage of those in a positive way to make public tax dollars go further.

Coming to Ann Arbor

Councilmembers wanted to know why Oppenheim was interested in the city administrator’s job here.

Ann Arbor is a very appealing community, she said. She’s lived and worked in several university communities, and has two degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. There’s a great quality of life – food, recreation, culture – that’s disproportionate to the size of Ann Arbor’s community.

She also wants to come back to city management as her primary focus, and this is the kind of quality community that attracts her. “I’m fussy,” she said, and this is the right job in the right place. The job would be challenging and fun, and this is the kind of community she’d enjoy living in. It’s fun to wrap her head around a new situation – it’s like a giant chess game.

So what three things would she do to hit the ground running? The city government is a healthy organization, Oppenheim said, and Ann Arbor is a fabulous community. It’s important to build relationships that are key to success, and to understand what the council views as priorities – how they like to communicate, and what they think is working or not. She doesn’t want to reinvent the wheel, so she needs to learn the lay of the land. What are the current issues that need to be addressed? She’d need to wrap her head around the budget and understand the tension points there, and what might lie ahead. She’d also use the first 90 days to get to know the city facilities.

Building bridges in the community is also important, including relationships with the chamber of commerce, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor SPARK, the downtown merchant associations, the library, the county and state elected officials. She’d go out and talk to any group that invites her. She said she understands university communities – that’s a lot of what makes Ann Arbor attractive to her. She’s the child of two academics, and she’s worked at Stanford and University of Wisconsin-Madison. She knows that university towns require a lot of community engagement. Everyone wants to be heard, and they should be.

The issue of her decision to apply for the Ann Arbor job also arose when she was asked about the most difficult decision she’s had to make in the last six months. It’s a mix of personal and professional decisions, Oppenheim said. Her mother became ill unexpectedly, and for the first time in Oppenheim’s life, her mother asked for her help. Earlier this year, Oppenheim said she decided she couldn’t do justice to the RSCVA job while taking care of her mother, so she resigned. Her mother is now doing very well and has relocated to New Jersey, where Oppenheim’s sister lives. That’s why she’s now looking for the next chapter in her life.

Oppenheim’s Questions for Councilmembers

In Tuesday’s three interview sessions with councilmembers and senior staff, Oppenheim asked two questions that reflected some of the themes of her own responses: (1) What are the top 2-3 challenges for the new city administrator? and (2) How will councilmembers measure the success for the next city administrator?

When Oppenheim asked how councilmembers would measure the success of the next city administrator, several councilmembers identified the budget as well as quality-of-life issues.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said the city will face some tough choices in the coming year. The city administrator will need to help listen to the opinions in the community, and find ways to respect all those voices. Higgins hoped that they could start working early on the budget in collaboration, and communicate what’s being considered so that residents aren’t surprised when decisions are made.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that handling the budget is a performance measure that can’t be avoided. The city needs to hit its budget numbers, but minimize the impact on residents. Ann Arbor is more fortunate than most places in Michigan, he said, but it’s still difficult. The city has a great parks system, he said, but it requires a lot of maintenance. And the cost of public safety services is also increasing, now accounting for about half the budget. Oppenheim replied that in California, police services typically account for 65-70% of a municipal budget. Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has made a decision that quality of life is important, too.

Quality of life is what attracted her to Ann Arbor, Oppenheim said. The good news, she said, is that the city hasn’t had to gut its services simply to save public safety – because the crime rate isn’t high. There will no doubt be tough choices, she said, and they’ll need to work with partners and look for different models. The library seems very successful, she said – about a half dozen people were lined up waiting for the downtown branch to open on Monday morning, she noted. That’s a different model – it’s not supported by the city. The economic downturn will be with us for a while, and even when the economy improves, the city shouldn’t go on a spending spree, she cautioned. It’s cyclical, and the city needs to build a buffer for future downturns.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said the measures of success for the next city administrator would depend on developing specific goals and metrics set in collaboration with the administrator and council. They’d need to identify key goals and priorities, and come to a mutual understanding on which to base the administrator’s future evaluation.

Oppenheim said she’d want to spend her first 90 days understanding the budget, looking at a five-year financial forecast – assuming the city has one – reviewing the status of city facilities, getting up to speed on bargaining agreements with unions, and familiarizing herself with the operation. Based on that, she’d come up with a game plan.

Regarding the top challenges for the city administrator, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) cited managing change, and Barnett Jones – head of the city’s public safety services – added that both economic and structural change would need to be managed. As Oppenheim had noted, the city isn’t in a crisis, Jones said, but in the context of the state’s economy, the city does need restructuring and an evaluation of priorities.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the next city administrator will face ongoing financial challenges, and will need to address those.

Some of the challenges will also entail how the administrator works with elected officials in developing a vision for the future, Derezinski said, and how then to implement that vision. Because it’s a university community, there are a lot of strong, divergent views. How do you coalesce those views into a vision that people can at least live with?

Anglin pointed to the need to develop “umbrella concepts” to guide the city’s actions, as opposed to moving from task to task. Oppenheim suggested that they’d need to develop strategic goals, but not get too tied up in the tactics used to achieve those goals.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said the city has a problem with trust, both from its citizens and its staff. That’s a really difficult thing to work on. As the city has gone through transitions – especially financial changes – it’s been difficult to explain why cuts are necessary, and why previous opportunities are now restricted. People have a difficult time accepting that these things are inevitable. And that attitude influences people’s perceptions about whether the city’s leaders are telling the truth and being as transparent as they can be about their motives and intents, Briere said. Ann Arbor has historically been economically secure, but the city isn’t so secure now, she said. Yet some people doubt that’s true.

Another challenge, Briere said, is that people in Ann Arbor want to change in a positive direction – regarding transportation, new development, and bringing in a diverse set of employers. But the city is in Michigan – there’s only so much that Ann Arbor can do in isolation. The challenge is to collaborate, Briere said, not just to maximize the benefits for Ann Arbor, but for everyone.

Oppenheim responded by saying it sounds like the challenge is to help people understand the situation, and let them know how they can give input to solutions. Given that this is a university town, she’d expect many people would want to be engaged.

That’s an understatement, quipped Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). The trick for the city administrator will be to reach out and secure the trust that has dissipated over the years, while also conveying the message that change is not inherently bad. For many people here, if it’s different, it’s wrong or bad, he said. They’re not looking to the future, and what future needs might be. Often when creative ideas are put forward, people assume that’s the final decision, he said – before you can explore an idea, it’s dead on arrival.

Briere mentioned that the city council has asked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to create a plan and vision for developing city-owned lots in the downtown area. But there’s no consensus on that vision or plan, she said. Developing a community or even a council consensus will be a challenge.

Rapundalo noted that sometimes the community discussion drags on forever – rather than truly coming together and compromising, people talk about an idea until it’s killed.

He also identified economic development as another challenge. Though Ann Arbor is fortunate to have the university and the technology it fosters, he said, the city hasn’t set any policies or strategies regarding economic development. City officials haven’t sat down with Ann Arbor SPARK to talk about priorities, for example, or about how the city’s actions align with what SPARK is doing.

Rapundalo wrapped up the topic by saying, “There’s no shortage of things to work on.”

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor government. 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!

Black currently serves as executive vice president and chief operating officer of Global Commerce Solutions (GCS) Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based government services firm that provides program and project management support services to the public sector. From 2005-2008 he worked as the deputy chief administrative officer/chief financial officer for the city of Richmond, Virginia.

Wondrash was not able to provide any details at this time about the reason for Black’s withdrawal.

Black’s withdrawal leaves two remaining finalists: Ellen Oppenheim and Steve Powers. Interviews for those candidates start on Tuesday, July 12, and are open to the public.

Oppenheim most recently served as president and chief executive officer of the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA) from 2006 to 2011. Oppenheim resigned from that job in February. According to a report in the Reno Gazette-Journal, she cited a need for more time to take care of her mother in Texas, who was ill. The Gazette-Journal reports that under terms of her contract, she remains on the RSCVA payroll until Aug. 10. Her salary in that position is $234,000.

Preceding her resignation, Oppenheim received criticism for her handling of an event involving the American International Choral Festival early this year: “Possible RSCVA Miscalculation Could Cost Local Economy Millions.” Members of the Ann Arbor city council search committee were reportedly not apprised of this negative publicity.

Vetting of Ann Arbor city administrator candidates – through Lexis/Nexis as well as through news media background searches on candidates – was to be performed by a consultant hired by the city, Affion Public, in concert with the city’s human resources department.

Affion Public itself endured some negative publicity earlier this year. According to local media reports in Savannah, Georgia, when Affion conducted background checks on candidates for the city manager job there, Savannah city council members were not apprised of some pertinent information about finalist candidates.  [This op-ed piece published in the Savannah Morning News recounts a series of information gaps: "Affion's Whiffs." A subsequent news report, also published in the Savannah Morning News, discusses an additional issue about one of the Savannah city manager finalists that was not conveyed to the Savannah city council.]

The second remaining finalist for the Ann Arbor city administrator, Steve Powers, currently serves as county administrator of Marquette County, Mich. – a position he’s held since 1996. The Mining Journal, writing about Powers’ interest in the Ann Arbor position, reports that Ann Arbor is one of a few other positions he’s considering: “Eyeing a New Job.” In the Mining Journal article, Powers related the timing for his exploration of other opportunities to the fact that his children have now graduated from college and high school.

The city of Ann Arbor will move ahead with its schedule for candidate visits and interviews early this week. That currently includes round robin interviews with small groups of councilmembers starting at 7:30 a.m. at city hall on Tuesday, July 12. Also on July 12, a public reception for residents to meet the candidates will be hosted in the lobby of the new municipal center at 301 E. Huron from 5:30-7:30 p.m. The reception will feature five-minute presentations from each candidate, as well as time for informal conversations with candidates.

The following day, July 13, candidates will be interviewed in public view in city council chambers from 8 a.m. to noon. That meeting will be videotaped and broadcast live on Channel 16 to allow viewing of the interviews by councilmembers and the public who are not able to attend. Due to family plans, professional committments and health issues, it’s possible that as few as seven out of 11 councilmembers will be present.

Based on a resolution passed at the council’s July 5 meeting, which revised the search committee’s recommended timeline for making the city administrator hire, it’s expected that a resolution making the appointment could be on the council’s July 18 agenda.

The three finalists had been winnowed down from a pool of roughly 8-10 by the city council’s search committee, which met starting mid-afternoon on July 5 to do that work. Members of the search committee are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje. The pool from which the search committee selected was identified by the city’s consultant, Affion Public, in concert with the city’s human resources department.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, was appointed interim city administrator at the city council’s April 19, 2011 meeting, effective April 28. Previous city administrator Roger Fraser announced his resignation at a Feb. 28 city council working session. Fraser took a job with the state of Michigan as a deputy treasurer.

[.pdf of city of Ann Arbor press release announcing three finalists]

Gareth Morgan is a scientist working on problems of protein folding and stability.

The Dec. 11, 2009 edition of the scientific journal Molecular Cell includes an article called “Optimizing Protein Stability In Vivo.” It’s a paper co-authored by nine people. The first two names on the list of nine authors are Linda Foit and Gareth Morgan. The paper combines expertise in genetics and chemistry, reflected in the specific strengths of Foit and Morgan, who are two young scientists working in James Bardwell’s lab at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Michigan.

Foit’s name might already be familiar to Ann Arbor Chronicle readers in connection with what might be called a “unsuccessful physics experiment” near downtown Ann Arbor – an attempt to achieve greater residential density with a project called The Moravian. Foit addressed the city council in support of the project.

Morgan’s name is certainly familiar to our readers, but he’s no relation to the publisher of The Chronicle, Mary Morgan. Gareth Morgan was visiting Ann Arbor from England for a two-week span recently and will return to Michigan in October for around a month to continue his collaboration with the Bardwell lab.

The fact that Gareth and Linda’s contribution to the paper was equal is made clear through the last of seven footnotes on the author line:

⁷ These authors contributed equally to this work.

The collaborative nature of modern science was one of the topics that Gareth and I talked about on the teeter totter last Saturday afternoon, just before the University of Michigan football team started its season against the University of Connecticut Huskies.

We also touched on the issue of health and safety culture in U.S. labs compared to British facilities, and the role that game-playing might play in the future of science. For details, read all of Gareth’s Talk. By way of preparation, it might be worth thinking about where it’s easier to drink a cup of coffee – a U.S. lab or a British lab.

I took the occasion of Gareth’s explanation of the credit conventions for a scientific paper as a chance to reflect very briefly on how the allocation of credit is indicated in other lines of work, including journalism.

Distribution of Credit in Teeter Tottering

In my specialty – teeter tottering – the activity is inherently a collaborative effort between at least two people, one on each end. So it’s natural that the world record for teeter-tottering is credited to two people – Brandi Carbee Petz and Natalie Svenvold. They established the initial Guinness World Record for teeter tottering back in 2003, tottering for 75 hours. Yes, Petz and Svenvold would make excellent guests for Teeter Talk.

Responding to an invitation to participate in Teeter Talk, Petz wrote in a 2006 email: “… I have not set a single cheek on a teeter totter since crawling off the one after 75 hours, and now I will avoid tottering again until it is in your backyard.” Petz lives in Washington state, where she coaches track and field at Western Washington University, so a visit to Ann Arbor just to ride the teeter totter seems somewhat unlikely – still, there’s a possibility that serendipitous travel could land Petz onto my backyard teeter totter.

While teeter tottering is, in fact, at least a two-person endeavor, the convention of Teeter Talk as a publication is to list just the riders on the other end of the board from me. It’s just implicit that I was one of the people on the teeter tottering board, so I don’t require an additional credit in that sense.

Distribution of Credit in Movies

I can’t tell from its promotional trailer if a recent movie documenting the assault on Petz and Svenvold’s teeter tottering record was successful. The movie’s title is “A Tale of Two Totters.” The director, Andy Lorimer, wrote to me that he hopes to submit “Two Totters” to the Ann Arbor Film Festival. But that festival focuses on experimental films, and I don’t know if Lorimer’s movie fits that classification. If it’s not accepted by the film festival this next year, I think it’s worth trying to figure out some other way to give that “Two Totters” an Ann Arbor screening.

Movies, of course, have their own way of acknowledging contributions to the monumental effort reflected in the finished frames projected on the screen: opening and closing credits. Few movie-watchers will sit through the endless scroll of closing credits that list out names they do not recognize and describe tasks they do not understand – best boys, grips and the like. What do those people care about having their name listed?

For independent films, those kinds of credits are actually part of the motivation for some people to invest their time and effort in the movie’s production. Those credits document a contribution of effort, time and energy to the project, and that documentation itself can help a person establish a credential for doing that kind of work.

And that way of acknowledging and distributing credit can even partly underpin a general approach to getting projects done. Last summer, Bill Tozier presented as a topic of one of the brown bag discussions at the Workantile Exchange something called “The ‘Independent Film Model’ for Project-Driven Businesses.” From the description introducing that brown bag discussion:

… which is inspired by independent film production companies but intended for projects that are not necessarily films. The business structure is different from most entrepreneurial models, since the goal is not to start a long-lived business or get a job, but to get a project done as an ad hoc group, distribute credit and revenue, and move on past “distribution” as a group of independent collaborators with no long-term affiliation.

I think the absence of a longer-lived business entity that ties collaborators together on a project at least partly accounts for the more explicit acknowledgment of a person’s contribution to those kinds of projects.

For the kinds of projects associated with a business entity, or some other kind of longer-lasting affiliation, many contributions are simply taken as background assumptions that need not be explicitly stated. In a given Teeter Talk, which is by now a relatively long-lived endeavor, the background assumption is that I was one of the riders.

Distribution of Credit in Journalism, Science

Instead of a teeter tottering interview website, let’s consider a news publication – like The Ann Arbor Chronicle – as an example of a longer-lasting, business-type entity under which a vast number of projects are organized and completed. We give them names like articles, stories, columns, or pieces.

Unlike the practice in the scientific community, a news publication will typically acknowledge only a single author – we call them bylines – for a given article. Others who may have contributed in small ways aren’t singled out for credit – or blame. For example, in my guise as a lowly editor, I am not allocated a byline just for changing some of the words so that they convey coherent meaning, or adding relevant factual context the author might not have known about. Nor are editor folk allocated any explicit credit for having had the idea in the first place to devote some resources to following an issue and writing about it.

In that regard, the field of journalism seems to differ slightly from scientific fields. Take the paper that was first-authored by Gareth Morgan and Linda Foit. Listed as the last two authors out of nine are Sheena E. Radford and James C.A. Bardwell. The last position in the author listings designates the principal investigators – footnotes with contact information accompany Radford and Bardwell’s names, but not other authors’. It is Radford and Bardwell’s program of research that Morgan and Foit were executing in that paper, so Radford and Bardwell get author credit for that.

The Chronicle has a kind of “program of research” as well, but we don’t call it that. We’ll typically refer to “editorial direction.” The editor doesn’t get credit for that direction or the actual editorial work on every single occasion an article is published in The Chronicle. For example, when I asked Hayley Byrnes to write a profile of city planning commissioner and environmental commissioner Kirk Westphal, she turned in a piece, I edited it, and it then was published in The Chronicle with Byrnes’ byline – no byline for me.

Even though I conceived of the occasional “Know Your” profile series, and specifically thought it would be a good idea now to include Westphal in it, gave Byrnes the assignment to write the piece, changed many of Byrne’s original words, and added some of my own, my name is not associated specifically with that article. Instead, I’m indicated elsewhere in the publication as its editor.

That’s just the way it’s done. There are several good reasons why the pattern and practice of news publications is to leave editors’ contributions unacknowledged. For one thing, career advancement of editors does not depend on a count of bylined articles in the way that it does for reporters. So editors aren’t necessarily clamoring for their names to be tacked onto the articles they edit.

What possible positive effect would it have to add “Editorial direction and writing consultation provided by [NAME]” to every news article? One effect might be to provide readers with an assurance that someone is actually minding the store – besides the reporters, who we assume are trying the best they can, but might fall short despite their best efforts.

But an assurance to readers that someone is actually minding the store has historically come from the masthead of the publication itself. It’s implicit that any news publication employs someone else besides the reporter – an editor – who looks at everything before it’s published. Readers are supposed to take that on faith.

In the same way, the readers of Molecular Cell take it on faith that there are people who verified the merit of the papers that appear in that scientific journal – peer reviewers. The reviewers of each paper are not listed anywhere in the papers themselves. Readers simply make the fair assumption that each paper was reviewed and properly vetted.

As traditional news organizations try to compete in the mass online marketplace of news and information, one way they could try to differentiate themselves from the work of “mere amateurs” is to give explicit credit to the work of editors with every article. But I’m skeptical that tactic would be an effective way to distinguish a publication’s quality in the online marketplace.

What if there’s no perceptible difference in the quality between material that’s posted unedited online by just some guy – as compared to the articles of journalists who do the work for a living and who’ve had actual editorial assistance? If that difference is not already apparent to a mass market readers, then an extra editor’s byline isn’t going to help those readers understand that its quality is any better.

So for now, The Chronicle will be sticking with the traditional byline – with the implicit understanding that each article is carefully edited before publication.

As for Teeter Talks, I’d like to take the occasion to thank the 179 people who’ve taken a ride over the past five years, dating back to the first talk with Rene Greff on a wintery day in December 2005. Like the paper co-authored by Linda Foit and Gareth Morgan, alums of the totter have contributed equally to the Teeter Talk effort – and they all deserve some explicit credit for that. If a book is ever published, then this is what the title page should look like:

“Teeter Talk,” a story, in reverse chronological order, by Gareth Morgan, Brian Kerr, Metta Lansdale, Scott Rosencrans, Brian Tolle, Caryn Simon, Shawn McDonald, Brenda Bentley, Ariane Carr, Zachary Branigan, Christopher Taylor, Fred Posner, Kay Yourist, John Floyd, Bridget Weise Knyal, Jameson Tamblyn, Neal Kelley, Dawn Lovejoy, Elizabeth Parkinson, Carsten Hohnke, David Lowenschuss, Charity Nebbe, Stewart Nelson, Jennifer Hackett, Patti Smith, Jeremy Keck, Jeremy Nettles, Jeff Gaynor, Paul Cousins, Colleen Zimmerman, Linda Diane Feldt, Gary Salton, Dan Jacobs, Jeremy Lopatin, Julia Lipman, Andrew Sell, Sara S., Dave Lewis, Bruce Fields, Debra Power, Debbie T., Stephen Smith, Kate Bosher, Charlie Partridge, John Roos, Mary Rasmussen, Alpha Omega Newberry IV, Richard Murphy, Rob Goodspeed, Greg Sobran, Brian Ruppert, Steve Edwards, Chicken Keeper, Debra Schanilec, Cindy Overmyer, Matt Naud, Trevor Staples, Michael Paul, Lucy Ament, The Andersons, Barbara Brodsky, Burrill Strong, John Weise, Laura Rubin, David Wahlberg, Edward Vielmetti, Brooklyn Revue, Mark Lincoln Braun (Mr. B), Bryant Stuckey, Doug Selby, Al Sjoerdsma, Kyle Campbell, Amanda Edmonds, Strange Fruit, Chris Buhalis, Richard Wickboldt, Chris Zias, Russ Collins, Peter Beal, Kris Talley, Derek Mehraban, William J. Clinton, Peter Sparling, Will Stewart, Arrah and the Ferns, Patrick Cardiff, Mark Bialek, Royer Held, Matt Callow, Coco Newton, Shannon Brines, Gina Pensiero, Pete J., Liza Wallis, Diane Ratkovich, Peter Thomason, Iden Baghdadchi, Lou Rosenfeld, Bob Droppleman, Charlie Slick, Josh Funk, Nyima Funk, Zach London, Jimmy Raggett, Aimee Smith, Matt Greff, Dale Winling, Tracy Artley, Steve Kunselman, Doug Husak, John Hieftje, Paul Schreiber, Tom Wall, Melinda Uerling, Nancy Shore, Brandon Wiard, Lisa Dugdale, Geoff Eley, Annie Palmer, Dave Sharp, Eileen Spring, Todd Leopold, Matt Erard, Brandon Zwagerman, Matt Lassiter, Sam Vail, Dave DeVarti, Chris Bathgate, Chris Fici, Mark Ouimet, The Boyds, Tom Crawford, Alan Henes, Neil Cleary, Doug Kelbaugh, Scott TenBrink, Barnett Jones, John Roberts, Shelly Smith, Khurum Sheikh, Chris Pawlicki, Jesse Levine, Patrick Elkins, Sam Nadon-Nichols, Dennis Rymarz, Jim Roll, Karl Pohrt, Scott Schnaars, Josie Parker, David Collins, Erica Briggs, Ed Shaffran, T. Casey Brennan, Andy Bichlbaum, Ingrid Sheldon, B.J. Enright, Jeremy Linden, Gaia Kile, Laura (Ypsi-Dixit), Alan Pagliere, Stephen Rapundalo, Alicia Wise, Leigh Greden, Eli Cooper, Joan Lowenstein, Dustin Krcatovich, Adam de Angeli, Todd Plesco, Larry Kestenbaum, Susan Pollay, Chris Easthope, Brandt Coultas, Henry Herskovitz, Rebekah Warren, Tom Bourque, Conan Smith, Dan Izzo, Steve Glauberman, Rene Greff.

Longtime Ann Arbor resident Metta Lansdale was recently hired as director of the Traverse Area District Library in Traverse City. Her first day on the job is today, Nov. 2. I talked to her on the teeter totter just before her move north.

We talked about a range of moving topics – the fact that she’s managed to sell her Ann Arbor house, how she found a place to live in Traverse City, her relationship to the Ann Arbor community, plus how she’s getting rid of the stuff she doesn’t want to move.

And some of that stuff includes books. I was keen to know how a librarian culls her own private collection.

In the mix of talk on the totter, there’s some brief discussion of the tools currently being used by a historic district study committee in Ann Arbor. That committee is examining an area in Ann Arbor south of William Street as a possible historic district, and will eventually make a recommendation to the Ann Arbor city council on that matter.

The actor/comedian David Alan Grier, who attended the University of Michigan in the '70s, will be in Ann Arbor on Sunday to promote his new book, "Barack Like Me: The Chocolate-Covered Truth." (Photo courtesy of David Alan Grier)

David Alan Grier is an actor and comedian who became famous as a member of the cast of the groundbreaking TV series “In Living Color” from 1990-1994, and went on to land roles in a range of movies and TV shows. Born in Detroit in 1955, he started acting while attending the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in the mid-1970s.

Grier has another Ann Arbor connection, too. In 2007, he hosted an NBC improv show, “Thank God You’re Here” – a cast member of that show, Nyima Funk, grew up in Ann Arbor and is the daughter of former city councilmember Wendy Woods.

Grier recently authored the book “Barack Like Me: The Chocolate-Covered Truth,” which he will be promoting at two appearances in Ann Arbor on Sunday, Oct. 18. From 10 a.m. to noon he’s scheduled to appear at the Arthur Miller Theatre in the Walgreen Drama Center on UM’s North Campus. From 2-3:30 p.m. he’ll be speaking and signing books at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch.

In a phone interview earlier this week, Grier talked about his experiences in Detroit and Ann Arbor, and reveals – among many things – which local icon inspired one of his “In Living Color” characters.

What was it like growing up in Detroit in the ’50s and ’60s?

I loved Detroit. We thought that we were big time – you know, that’s where cars were made! And Motown was from Detroit. I really was very proud of my city.

I don’t really remember the ’50s. I guess my first memory is from around 1960, like most kids, when I was around four years old. I remember going into my preschool, it was part of the church I went to, People’s Community Church. My teacher was like, “Who are you voting for?” And we’re like, “We’re all for Kennedy!” That was probably my first memory.

Were you particularly political during the ’60s?

I was a kid, but growing up in that time, I think I talk about it in the book – my family marching with Martin Luther King, Jr., when he did his march on poverty in Detroit in ’63, and being aware of all those things that were inherently political around us. I grew up in a politically-conscious family. Let me put it like that.

Do you remember anything in particular about marching with Dr. King?

I remember that I did not want to do it because I wanted to play football! And I remember ice cream. And lots of people. And having to dress in our Sunday clothes. You know, as a kid, at that age, it really was like, this is very important. All our family’s doing it, you have to do it, too. That was what my memory was.

Later on, with the march on Washington, I remember watching it on television in the living room. I knew something important was going on, when my parents put the television in the living room.

What do you remember about the riots in Detroit in the summer of 1967?

I grew up on West Boston Boulevard, so there was a huge field, it was Durfee, Roosevelt, and Central High School. And the National Guard just took over. We had our little Brownie cameras and we went up to the fence and took pictures of the troops.

I remember when my aunt called my mom early in the morning, and said that a blind pig had been raided and there was a riot. In ’67 I was only 12 years old, and I was thinking, “What is a blind pig?” “What is a riot?” I didn’t know what a riot was. Was it a big fight? What was it? I didn’t know.

My mom loaded us up and we went and drove a few blocks to take a look, which was really scary, and dangerous. That felt like a state of war, like civil war.

You also tried to join the Black Panthers?

Yes, but I do say that I was what I call a “blerd,” a black nerd. I remember that my best friend and I, we really wanted to join the Black Panther Party. You know what it was the closest to? I was watching this documentary on the N.W.A., and Gangsta rap, and the fascination was the same. It was rebellious – these dudes were loud, and profane, and yelling stuff. It was very exciting, very provocative. Yeah, man – and they dressed really cool. They had black berets and black leather jackets. It was awesome!

Of course we were rebuffed, and weren’t allowed to join. We were too young. They said you had to be 16, and we were only 15. So that was unsuccessful.

[Later Grier would play Black Panther Fred Hampton in a television mini-series about the 1960s.]

What are your thoughts about Detroit now?

Oh man, what can I say. I still have family there, and it’s great to go back and visit the family. But when I’m taking someone there for the first time, I feel like a guy from the Twilight Zone, trying to explain that this was a vibrant city. All these neighborhoods that we’re driving through, these were vibrant, middle-class neighborhoods that weren’t the best, but they were safe, and they were populated. It’s hard to even imagine now.

It saddens me. I grew up in Detroit, and I love Detroit. Hopefully, some day they can figure out a fix and a cure, but it really does sadden me.

What do you remember about Ann Arbor?

I loved going to school in Ann Arbor. I have nothing but fond memories. That’s when I started acting. I started everything there.

I think Ann Arbor’s changed a lot. I haven’t been there in a while. But when I went to school in Ann Arbor it was really a quaint, small town. It was awesome. They still had the Hash Bash!

Did you go to any Hash Bashes?

Um, I went to one or two. I didn’t actually go to it, you know – you went through it to get to class. Once a friend of mine smoked some suspect hash, and it was a long night. So after that, I was kind of off the Hash Bash.

What made you choose to go to the University of Michigan?

Well, I didn’t want to go to the University of Michigan. I wanted to go to the University of Colorado in Boulder. There used to be a catalog, like the Whole Earth Catalog for colleges. It named the coolest school, the best party school, like that. The University of Colorado was the number one party school, and that’s why I wanted to go. And my parents were like, “No, you’re not going there.”

The University of Michigan was the coolest alternative, and most economically viable, being that I was a resident of Michigan. And you know, it’s a great school. And it was within striking range of my mom. It was about 41 minutes, I think, from our front door to the college. That’s why I got to go there.

Do you draw on your experiences in Ann Arbor for any of your characters or routines?

Of course! The character I did on “In Living Color,” this old blues player, was based on a guy that used to hang out on the Diag. His name was Shakey Jake. Someone told me on Facebook that he recently passed away.

Yes, he did.

Yeah, I was sorry to hear that. But that was definitely Shakey Jake. And One-String Sam, who was a real musician from the Detroit area. He had this two-by-four, and he took two nails, two liquor bottles, and one string, and he would play slide. I think he recorded one song, called “All I Need Is a Hundred Dollars.” When I did Calhoun Tubbs on “In Living Color,” that was definitely an homage to those two guys.

In the ’60s and ’70s Ann Arbor had a reputation for being a hotbed of radicalism. Was that your experience when you were here?

Well, I would say it was a hotbed of apathy by the time I got there. I mean, the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] and all that – we heard rumors of them, but of course the heyday of all that was gone. It was in the midst of the apathetic ’70s. I mean, we went to a couple of Ann Arbor Blues and Jazz Festivals, but basically that atmosphere – there was still smoke, but the fire was gone.

Do you remember any activism on campus among the black student body?

Well, there were things that I took for granted. I’ll give you an example. Two or three years ago, I did a production of “The Wiz” at San Diego State University, and a fellow classmate of mine, who now was the dean of a department there, asked me to speak, because they were just inaugurating an African Studies department.

I was shocked! Because in ’74 they had an African-American Studies department at the University of Michigan that was well established. That had to be a result of the activism of the students there. Black Studies – that was a major. Women’s Studies – that was a major. Back then, that was a radical step. But they had these departments, and they were rolling. By the time I got there, they felt like they were part of the university.

I took classes as a freshman, before I decided my major. Even black theater, which was the first acting class I ever took. My teacher, Dr. Vaughn Washington, would do Othello. I was in it, a lot of my friends were in it. It was a part of my education, and it was at the very beginning, too. That’s how I really got into acting.

Any other memories of Ann Arbor?

I saw Richard Pryor there…. Honestly, the fond memory of Ann Arbor is the cultural mix that was there. I could go to a medieval concert, and poetry readings, and Chinese opera – I mean, it was there. It was a place that was vibrant and alive, and there was so much access to so much knowledge and experience, it was great. I liked being there, and going to school there. It really helped open and expand my world.

About the writer: Alan Glenn is currently at work a documentary film about Ann Arbor in the ’60s. Visit the film’s website for more information.