From the public notices published in the Oct. 1, 2009 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News: "Ann Arbor City Notice, Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed A2D2 Downtown Design Guidelines."

Ann Arbor City Council Sunday night caucus (Oct. 4, 2009): At its Sunday night meeting attended by only three councilmembers – Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – downtown zoning was again center stage.

A dozen or so residents attended the caucus and many of them addressed the changes that can be traced in the draft documents for A2D2 downtown building design guidelines from Oct. 15, 2007 to April 30, 2008, to Aug. 28, 2009, and most recently in the Sept. 30, 2009 version of the document.

The council will open a public hearing on the proposed guidelines on Oct. 5, but is not scheduled to vote on the matter until at least Oct. 19. At caucus, Hieftje said that the public hearing might be left open until Oct. 19 and that it was possible that no vote would be taken then – there was “no rush,” he said.

The complaint of many of those who addressed caucus was this: A commitment to the design guidelines as a compulsory part of project review had been gradually written out of the various drafts.

The challenge in following the changes to the draft was made more difficult, some speakers contended, by the fact that the city had altered its strategy for publicizing public hearings. That’s a strategic necessity driven by the fact that the closing of The Ann Arbor News leaves The Washtenaw Legal News as the only local “newspaper of general circulation.” Other issues that came up at caucus included an item on Monday’s agenda to spend $122,480 to have the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code – as well as master plans, and other documents related to development – for inconsistencies. Clarion has offices in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Although an ordinance addressing toy guns returns to Monday’s agenda, it will likely be put off again – this time to be tabled instead of postponed to a date certain. Caucus also previewed an extension of a moratorium on the installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods.

Design Guidelines Draft: A Work in Progress

The latest draft of the design guidelines document, which is a part of the A2D2 rezoning process, was released by the city on Sept. 30. The specific guidelines themselves seem to be materially the same as those in the Aug. 28 draft, which underpinned the city council’s mid-September joint work session with planning commission and the Downtown Development Authority board. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should."] However, the role that those guidelines play in the project review process has changed in the Sept. 30 version as compared to the Aug. 28 draft. To get a clearer picture of how the guidelines’ role has changed since the earliest draft, we’ve excerpted the language in relevant part, dating back two years.

[Oct. 17, 2007 Draft] The Design Review System …
Design Advisory Resource Panel A special panel will be established to provide advice to staff in making design review decisions. The majority of this group shall be design professionals, but it should also include some downtown property owners and community advocates. The panel will meet on an as-needed basis. Since their actions will only be advisory, no formal hearing will be required. All meetings will be open to the public and advance notice will be given in order to give the public an opportunity to attend their meetings. The panel will provide their advice to staff on the interpretation of the design guidelines as needed/requested …

Six months later, the “system” had become a “process.” But the notion of a panel or a board of some kind was retained.

[April 30, 2008 Draft] Design Review Process …
Design Advisory Panel. A special design advisory panel will be established as a resource for the decision-making process. Their role will be advisory only. Staff may draw upon the expertise of this panel for interpreting the design guidelines. Applicants may also request the assistance of the panel as part of the review.

More than a year after that, the “process” had become a discussion of “application” of the guidelines. No notion of a review panel is included in the Aug. 28 draft. But there is a specific requirement that a submitted project include a statement by  developers explaining how their projects meet the goals of the guidelines :

[Aug. 28, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary but applications for site plan approval in the D1 and D2 zoning districts must include a Design Guidelines Statement describing how the proposed project relates to the priority guidelines in Chapter 2: General Design Guidelines and any priority guidelines for the relevant character district in Chapter 3: Design Guidelines for Character Districts. Refer to the Land Development regulations within Chapter 57 of the City Code for specific requirements.

Those regulations in Chapter 57 would need to be enacted – there’s nothing currently in the code requiring such a statement.

Considered as a whole document, the  latest version of the guidelines includes some superficial differences – mainly the symbol used to designate high-priority guidelines. It’s been changed from the “Texaco Star” symbol to a tree – which to The Chronicle’s eye appears to be the same tree that appears in the city of Ann Arbor’s seal.

By way of material differences between the Aug. 28 and the Sept. 30 drafts, there is no reference to specific requirements in Chapter 57 of a statement that’s required from a developer:

[Sept. 30, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
The design guidelines in this document apply to development on all properties within the Downtown Core (D1) and Downtown Interface (D2) zoning districts. For properties that are in a designated historic district, refer to the separate Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. When considering a project downtown, property owners, developers and architects are encouraged to refer to the downtown design guidelines. Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary.

There is also a checklist included in the appendix to the Sept. 30 draft, but there is no role in the project review process specified for it. So in terms of the scale of voluntary-to-compulsory described at the council’s joint work session by the consultant on the project, the changes in the draft documents correspond to a change from (3) to (1).

1. Completely voluntary: Design guidelines exist as a resource for developers. Developers are free to look at the guidelines or not. They’re free to incorporate the guidelines into their downtown projects or not.
2. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a checklist: As a part of the site plan approval process, developers must submit a statement evaluating their project against a checklist of design guidelines. The statement would explain how a project does and does not meet the intent of the design guidelines. Regardless of how the project stacks up based on the developer’s self-evaluation or planning staff’s evaluation and feedback, the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on the design guidelines alone.
3. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a design review board/panel: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation, but the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on that opinion.
4. Obligatory process, obligatory compliance: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation and that opinion would be legally binding. Otherwise put, a project could be denied based on a design review board’s assessment.

As previously reported, the direction to the consultant, Winter & Company, to craft the document in a way that presented the guidelines as voluntary came from the A2D2 oversight committee this past summer. The three-member committee consists of Marcia Higgins (city council, Ward 4), Evan Pratt (planning commission), and Roger Hewitt (DDA board).

Residents at caucus pointed out that the Sept. 30 draft had come just a day before the public notice had been published – and the publication of that notice had been in a newspaper some of them didn’t know existed: The Washtnaw Legal News.

Publication of Public Notices

The closing of The Ann Arbor News has had an impact on the city of Ann Arbor’s ability to cost-effectively meet its legal obligations to publish notices, as well as to adequately disseminate the information. The topic has come up recently with great frequency, most recently at the last regular meeting of the city council.

From The Chronicle’s Sept. 21 city council meeting report:

During public commentary on the need to adopt a sense of “diminished astonishment” when trying to follow public events, Jim Mogensen mentioned the fact that the public hearing on City Place had been published in the Detroit Free Press, but not in AnnArbor.com’s print edition.

It’s worth noting that the state statute requires that a newspaper be in publication for a year before it meets the legal requirement for publication of legal notices – so AnnArbor.com, which started publishing in July 2009, doesn’t qualify.

During a break in council’s meeting, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified for The Chronicle that from the point of view of cost, the Washtenaw Legal News is the city’s preferred choice, but that sometimes the timing of the once-a-week Legal News publication schedule forces the city to resort to the more expensive Detroit Free Press. Compared to the old Ann Arbor News, Beaudry said, the Free Press notices cost 10 times as much.

It was the Washtenaw Legal News (Oct. 1, 2009 edition) that the city used to publicize the Oct. 5 public hearing on the design guidelines. The Legal News is a weekly publication that comes out on Thursdays. Subscribers, who currently pay $5 per year, receive their copy of the paper in the mail.

One resident at caucus described her frustration visiting the Legal News website, discovering that she needed a subscription to see the content, then having difficulty finding the notices after she subscribed.

Mayor Hieftje acknowledged the challenge now faced by the city in meeting its legal obligations for publication, and suggested that the charter amendments to appear on November’s ballot would address part of that challenge. However, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out, the amendments to the charter do not address printing. [The proposed amendments would allow the city to satisfy its legal obligations for publication of ordinances by posting them on its own website.]

One idea floated by a resident at caucus was to recruit the University of Michigan Record and/or the Michigan Daily, which both have printed editions, in the effort to publicize public hearings and the like. The idea involved expanding the distribution area beyond campus.

In the course of the discussion among councilmembers and residents, an important distinction crystallized: Legal obligation versus effective dissemination. Part of the challenge in using the Legal News for effective dissemination of information is related to its weekly publication schedule. City council rules allow changes to its agenda up until the last minute, with recent revisions to those rules only requiring members to use “best efforts” to make such changes by the Friday before a Monday meeting.

Asked at caucus why the council had not enforced more discipline on itself with respect to these rules, Briere said that in her service on the rules committee, for late agenda changes she’d weighed in for language like “emergency” or “rare occurence,” but that she’d been talked out of it. There were, she said, occasions on which the council needed to be able to respond quickly to a situation. The response from the resident who raised the question: The council always has the option of suspending the rules. Briere summed up by saying, “It’s difficult to change people’s mind when life has been convenient.”

For reference, here’s how the State of Michigan defines “newspaper,” which is the source of the city of Ann Arbor’s challenge in meeting its legal obligations as well as serving the public interest.

Michigan Compiled Laws 691.1051: Newspaper; definition; publication of notices.

Sec. 1. The term “newspaper” as used in any statute of this state, except the revised judicature act of 1961 relative to the publication of a notice of any kind, shall be construed to refer only to a newspaper published in the English language for the dissemination of local or transmitted news and intelligence of a general character or for the dissemination of legal news, which

(a) has a bona fide list of paying subscribers or has been published at not less than weekly intervals in the same community without interruption for at least 2 years, and

(b) has been published and of general circulation at not less than weekly intervals without interruption for at least 1 year in the county, township, city, village or district where the notice is required to be published. A newspaper shall not lose eligibility for interruption of continuous publication because of acts of God, labor disputes or because of military service of the publisher for a period of not to exceed 2 years and provided publication is resumed within 6 months following the termination of such military service,

(c) annually averages at least 25% news and editorial content per issue. The term “news and editorial content” for the purpose of this section means any printed matter other than advertising.

If no newspaper so qualifies in the county where the court is situated, the term “newspaper” shall include any newspaper in an adjoining county which by this act is qualified to publish notice of actions commenced therein.

Zoning Code Overhaul

Residents asked the caucusing councilmembers to provide some clarity on a resolution to approve $122,480 for a contract with the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that there was money in the city attorney’s budget to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances to make them more compatible with each other.

After caucus, Briere cited for The Chronicle as an example of problems with compatibility various wetlands regulations, which had arisen during the contentious approval process for the 42 North development. [Briere voted against the project when it was brought forward as a matter of right proposal, based in part on the interpretation of wetlands rules.]

Briere clarified that the work to be done by Clarion is not the A2D2 process and does not involve the substance of the code. She said that for her, given the cost, the question about the need to resolve conflicting language was this: Is this the year to do it?

Here’s the rationale for the legal work to be done by Clarion, taken from the administrative memo accompanying the resolution:

The current zoning and development ordinances have many issues that make it difficult to use. The issues can be summarized as: 1) the overall organization structure is cumbersome and it can be challenging to find code sections; 2) related standards are often contained in different code sections and can be difficult to navigate; 3) a lack of clarity in code language makes the code difficult to interpret; 4) there are some ordinance gaps and provisions that are out-of-date or may have minor inconsistencies with state law, and 5) the use of terms is inconsistent.

The professional services agreement with Clarion Associates is for consulting services to reorganize eleven different chapters of the Ann Arbor City Code and to address the identified issues to produce an integrated, internally consistent and user-friendly version that is: 1) comprehensive – to eliminate cross referencing between code sections to determine standards governing development and redevelopment; 2) clear and internally consistent; 3) usable, both internally by staff and externally by the public; 4) enforceable and legally defensible based on objective standards and Michigan enabling laws; and 5) adaptable and structured to make it easy to amend or to add/ delete provisions in the future.

Material changes to the code will not be addressed in this project. This effort will focus on the development of a solid framework so that future code changes – both technical and substantive – can be more easily incorporated. Material code changes will be undertaken as a rewrite of zoning standards following the development of the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan: Land Use Element, Phase II: Update Land Use Recommendations, a three-year process scheduled to begin in 2010. Material code changes that may surface as part of this effort will be collected in a “Suggestions for Future Changes” document for use as a part of the future zoning rewrite effort.

Toy Guns

At the council’s Sept. 8 meeting, a second reading was heard of an ordinance that would allow enforcement of prohibitions against so-called look-alike weapons. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had raised questions about the adequacy of the language in the ordinance. [See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Begins Transition."] For that meeting, the city attorney’s office had asked that the resolution be tabled so that the language could be rewritten.

The council voted to postpone the resolution – until Oct. 5. As Briere clarified at caucus, the attorney’s office had actually wanted a tabling of the resolution (with no date fixed). No changes have been made to the language in the interim. As a consequence, explained Briere,  the request from the attorney’s office is again to table the resolution so that adequate time can be put into reworking the language.

Based on her deliberations at the Sept. 8 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 2) might float the idea of simply voting down the ordinance, instead of tabling it, and letting it come back clean, thus eliminating the need to track changes from one version to the next.

The word on the button is bigger than it appears.

At last Thursday night’s work session, city council members reached a consensus on a city income tax proposal. Their consensus was this: They did not want city staff to place on their Monday agenda an item that, if passed, would have put a city income tax question on November’s ballot.

So based on the agenda posted on the city of Ann Arbor website, and in light of the Sunday night caucus discussion among council members, it appeared there would not be any really substantive issues before that body at its Monday night meeting.

Yet council ended up voting on three substantive items – all introduced late in the day on Monday. One was a reconsideration of a historic district study committee resolution passed at the council’s previous meeting – it  amounts to a wording change. But it’s a wording change that has a material affect on what projects homeowners in the district can undertake on their properties during the study period. The original resolution at the previous council meeting had also been introduced late in the day, with no public discussion beforehand surrounding the resolution.

A second item introduced late Monday concerned a new transit center on Fuller Road. It entailed the authorization of around $200,000 – about half of that from the city’s economic development fund, which was originally established to pay for parking spaces that Google had demanded as a part of its decision to locate offices in downtown Ann Arbor.

And finally – even though councilmembers had decided at their work session they didn’t want to contemplate putting an income tax before the voters – they decided to put something else before the voters: a charter amendment that would give council the authority to decide how certain notifications are published.

The amendment would change current requirements that certain items are printed in a newspaper, instead allowing for a broader range of options, including online publications.

How could an online enthusiast like me, the editor of an online publication, be against this move? Easy.

Background

Printed agendas are provided to audience members at Ann Arbor city council meetings. They’re similar in function to church bulletins that I recall from the Methodist upbringing of my youth – for many attendees they’re just a way to track how much time is left in the purgatory of public policy discussion. In other ways, of course, those agendas are different from church bulletins – for one thing, they don’t give hymn numbers for the musical elements that have become familiar over the last few council meetings, including last night.

Musical elements aside, the timing of last night’s ballot resolution was ironic. The resolution to put a charter amendment before voters – one that would change the newspaper publication of council’s ordinances – was added so late that it could not be included in the printed agendas at council chambers on Monday evening. Not even in the section labeled “Added After Newspaper Deadline.”

That deadline comes not from the city charter, but rather from the council’s own set of rules:

3F – Publication of Agenda: The approved agenda for all meetings of Council, including Work Sessions, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no later than the Sunday prior to each meeting, except those meetings called less than six days prior to a meeting. All meetings of the Council will be posted in the lobby of City Hall and on the City Website.

As we reported in our summary of Sunday night’s caucus, one resident there addressed councilmembers on the issue of newspaper publication of various notices. One of her points was that the city council agenda had not been printed in the print edition of AnnArbor.com, and that was where she and many other residents expected it to appear – printed in a newspaper.

The FY 2010 budget (the current budget year), which was adopted by the city council in the spring, includes an assumption that the city council agenda will no longer be printed in a newspaper – at a cost savings of around $15,000.

But this is a council rule, not a part of the city charter. As such, it needs to be changed by the council to conform with the current practice of non-publication.  Editor’s note: As clarified in comment [6] below by the city clerk, and the contentions at caucus notwithstanding, the agendas do continue to be published – in AnnArbor.com, which The Chronicle has verified [photo]. Such a change is likely to be included in the raft of rule changes that are expected to be considered at council’s Sept. 8 meeting – along with rules governing email exchanges.

What, then, has city council decided to put before voters on the November ballot?

What the City Charter Says Now

There are two parts of Chapter 7, “City Legislation” of Ann Arbor’s city charter that voters will be asked to amend. Here’s what they say now:

7.3 (d) A zoning ordinance or an amendment or revision thereof shall be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the City, and opportunity for a public hearing allowed thereon before final action is taken by the Council.

7.4 (a) Each ordinance shall be published within ten days after its enactment in one of the following two methods:

(1) The full text thereof may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ann Arbor, or

(2) In cases of ordinances over five hundred words in length, a digest, summary or statement of the purpose of the ordinance, approved by the Council, may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ann Arbor, including with such newspaper publication, a notice that printed copies of the full text of the ordinance are available for inspection by, and distribution to, the public, at the office of the City Clerk. If Method (2) is used, then printed copies shall promptly be so made available, as stated in such notice.

What the Amended City Charter Would Say

As the “Whereas” clauses to the resolution make clear, the city council is asking voters to change the city charter because we live in a different world than when the city charter was first adopted – in 1956. This was a point that city attorney Stephen Postema made in his remarks to the city council that introduced the resolution. From the resolution: “Methods of communication and forms of media have altered materially since the adoption of these provisions and similar provisions in State law; …”

The amended versions of 7.3 (d) and 7.4 (a) in the city charter would change the requirement of newspaper publication to simply one of many unspecified options (additions are indicated in blue):

7.3 (d) A zoning ordinance or an amendment or revision thereof shall be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the City or any other media otherwise permitted by law, and opportunity for a public hearing allowed thereon before final action is taken by the Council.

7.4 (a) Each ordinance shall be published within ten days after its enactment in one of the following two methods:

1. The full text thereof may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ann Arbor or by posting to the City’s website or by any other means or method determined by City Council appropriate to properly inform the general public in matters of municipal concerns, or

2. In cases of ordinances over five hundred words in length, a digest, summary or statement of the purpose of the ordinance, approved by the Council, may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ann Arbor or by posting to the City’s website or by any other means or methods determined by City Council appropriate to properly inform the general public in matters of municipal concerns, including with such publication, a notice that printed copies of the full text of the ordinance are available for inspection by, and distribution to, the public, at the office of the City Clerk. If Method (2) is used, then printed copies shall promptly be so made available, as stated in such notice.

Public Policy Considerations: Beyond Dissemination

It was good public policy back in 1956 for the city charter to require publication of these items in a newspaper of general circulation – newspapers were an effective way of disseminating information about the actions of the city council. This public policy concern is reflected in the resolution passed on Monday night: “… the original intent of these provisions was to provide notice of Council actions by the most effective means available; …”

Given that there are now other ways to disseminate textual information that are arguably at least as effective as newspapers – direct mail from the U.S. Postal Service, email list-serves, RSS feeds, text messaging services, websites – it’s reasonable to contemplate adding other options to printed publication in newspapers.

But it’s not merely the effective dissemination of information that made printed publication of notices in newspapers good public policy in 1956. The merit of that public policy also stemmed in part from the fact that a third party – a newspaper – was involved. That third party, which stood outside of the government agency whose actions were to be documented, acted as some sort of external check on the government agency – in this case, the city council.

Publishing versus Posting

How does a requirement for publication of notices in newspapers provide a check on government agencies? This check does not stem from the fact that newspapers print information on paper. There’s nothing magical about the paper and ink. Rather, this check stems from the fact that newspapers publish information. Otherwise put, newspapers have editors.

Web-based publications can have editors, too. So, it’s possible to publish information on the Web as well as in print, and we prove that every day here at The Ann Arbor Chronicle. But our claim to the act of publishing does not rest on the label of the blue button in our software, which reads “Publish.” Clicking on that button makes an article accessible to the public, but making it accessible to the public is not the same as publishing it.

What makes this column you’re reading published as opposed to just posted is that someone else besides me looked at it, evaluated it, made some changes, discussed with me various issues, and ultimately decided whether to press that publish button. So not everything that appears on The Chronicle’s website is published. Comments that readers leave at the end of articles, for example, are merely posted. It makes no sense to say, “The Chronicle published my comment.” We did not publish your comment – we gave you a tool to post your comment.

Why is this distinction between publishing and posting a big deal? It’s not that we imagine that there would be editing to do for an ordinance that’s been passed by city council. Quite the opposite. If the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, were to send along an ordinance for publication in The Chronicle, it would not be my editor’s role to examine the text and suggest that she use “will” instead of “shall” or perhaps rethink the “Whereas” clauses in terms of providing more dramatic tension for the reader.

Rather, it would be my role to ensure that what appeared on The Chronicle’s website matched exactly what she gave me. So what’s the benefit of adding this third-party editorial process that allows us to call it publishing an ordinance?  How does publishing serve as check on government? Isn’t this really just an argument that government should write a check – to publishers? No.

Benefits of Publishing

Here’s where I see the check. Attached to publishing is a cultural understanding that publishers archive what they publish. Part of the reason The Chronicle keeps all of its old articles online is that they’re useful as archival reference – for readers and for us as well. Part of the reason I write articles in the amount of detail I do is that I want to use those detailed accounts myself – to write additional detailed articles in the future. This is not idiosyncratic to The Chronicle. That’s what publishers do.

So when a question arises as to what was published and how it was published, you can appeal to the publisher’s archives. Why is that important? Because if there’s a question about whether the government met its 10-day deadline requirement of the city charter, it should not be the government itself that adjudicates the question of whether it has met its obligation. Rather it should be the third-party publisher’s archives.

Similarly, what if there’s a question about whether the wording of an approved ordinance that first appeared on a website matched the wording that currently is displayed in the archives? Or what if there’s a question about whether the currently displayed archives match the wording deliberated on and approved by the city council? These questions, too, should be settled not by asking the government itself whether it has created an accurate record, but by appeal to the third-party publisher’s archives.

Posting on the City’s Website?

The charter amendment that city council is asking voters to approve in November states that a sufficient means to disseminate the content of its passed ordinances is to post them on the city’s website.

As I’ve laid out, there’s no built-in external check, if the city itself – through posting as opposed to publishing – disseminates the content of its own ordinances. Certainly it’s a good idea if the city posts the content of its passed ordinances on its website. The question, however, is whether the city charter should require anything more than that.  What the city council is asking voters to approve is a measure that would allow the city to satisfy the charter by posting ordinances to the city website – and nothing more.

The Flexibility Afforded to City Council

In the amendment to 7.4(a), the city council is also asking voters to give the council the broad discretion to use “any other means or method determined by city council appropriate” to disseminate the content of its ordinances.

A future city council could thus determine that spray-chalking ordinances on the sidewalks around city hall is appropriate for dissemination of this information. Were it to decide such a thing were appropriate, it’s not clear from the proposed charter amendment how the council might express its desire that this count as an appropriate method.  Would a resolution be required? Would that resolution need to be passed before the method were deployed?  Could “no means at all” count as “any other means” in terms of the amended charter language?

According to Ann Arbor’s city attorney’s office, no other municipality in Michigan affords its city council the kind of latitude that this charter amendment does to determine compliance with requirements of dissemination.

Ballot Language: Copy Editor Needed

The ballot language accompanying one of the proposed charter amendments is as problematic as its content. That’s important, because it’s the ballot language that voters will confront in their voting booths, and it’s the language that is likely to be used as a briefer, more efficient version of the proposal in various publications that cover this issue leading up to the November election.

First, given the broad latitude that is afforded to the city council by the proposed charter amendment to 7.4(a), it’s unfortunate that the ballot language puts unneeded grammatical distance between the council and its role as the determining agent. Here’s how the ballot language reads:

Shall Sections 7.4(a) (1) and (2) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to permit the current requirement of newspaper publication of City ordinances to be satisfied also by posting to the City website, any media permitted by law or determined appropriate to inform the general public by City Council? [emphasis added]

As written, it’s not immediately clear that it’s the city council that is determining the appropriate means of communication. The “by” phrase would be better placed immediately after “determined” – like this: “… or determined by City Council to be appropriate to inform the general public?”

The more serious problem with the ballot language is that the “any media permitted by law” phrasing is not a part of the proposed amendment for 7.4(a), but is included in its ballot language. However, the “any media permitted by law” phrasing is a part of the 7.3(d) amendment. I would conclude that this is sloppiness on the part of the city attorney’s office and/or the resolution’s sponsor, Marcia Higgins.

To  reflect the proposed amendment accurately, the ballot language should instead use the “any other means or methods” phrasing of the 7.4(a) amendment.

In sum, the ballot language that council approved probably should have read:

Shall Sections 7.4(a) (1) and (2) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to permit the current requirement of newspaper publication of City ordinances to be satisfied also by posting to the City website, or also by any other means or methods determined by City Council to be appropriate to inform the general public?

Conclusion: I’m Voting No

At the council’s Monday meeting – when councilmembers approved the ballot question for the charter amendments on newspaper publication – Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was spot-on when he lambasted his colleagues for failing to support his motion to postpone the historic district study committee appointment at the council’s previous meeting.  He’d asked for 12 days, he said, arguing that something so controversial – which had in one form or another been discussed over multiple months and multiple meetings – should not be introduced for consideration late in the very day of a council meeting.

As it turned out, the language of the resolution on the historic district had to be brought back before council for reconsideration to get the difference straightened out between “demolition” and “all construction, addition, alteration, repair, moving, excavation, or demolition.” A postponement might have avoided the glitch.

Some city council members seemed to think it did not matter about the late timing of the charter amendment – because they assumed it wouldn’t be controversial. The problem with that assumption is that it’s impossible to know if a proposal is controversial until it’s made public.

Now that it’s been made public and approved, here’s a news flash for Ann Arbor’s city council: Asking voters to give you charter authority to do anything you didn’t already have authority to do – that’s going to be controversial.

There are problems with the ballot language as well as with the basic premise of these charter amendments. They could have probably been altered in a way that would have made the proposal truly uncontroversial – if the city council had publicly discussed the possibility of putting such an amendment forward before it suddenly appeared on its agenda.

There is no particular urgency here, and once the charter amendment and accompanying ballot language are revised appropriately, it could be passed in spring of 2010.

But as the charter amendment stands, I find it impossible to support and I’ll be voting no.