John U. Bacon

An important tenth year anniversary is coming up, but it’s not one I’ve been looking forward to.

I first met Mike Lapprich when I was an assistant hockey coach at Ann Arbor Huron High School, and he was just a ninth grader. He was a big defenseman with a baby face, a shy guy with an easy smile – an oversized puppy.

I came back five years later as the head coach, when Lapper, as we all called him, had just finished his first year as an assistant coach, at the ripe age of 18. The team we inherited had not won a game in over a year.

When I met the returning captain, Mike Henry, over lunch that summer, he brought a list of things he wanted to discuss. The first: “You have no idea what you’re getting into.” The second: “Lapper’s our man. He’s the guy we trust. Keep him, and treat him right.”

It was not a suggestion.

We had a lot of work to do. So, we went to work. I was the drill sergeant, but Lapper was their big brother. When they felt like quitting, he was the one who kept them going.

Day by day, little by little, we learned how to stretch like a team, we learned how to practice like a team, we learned how to how to dress like a team – green shirts and gold ties – and we learned how to play the game, as a team. By our third season, we had become a top-ten squad.

Lapper worked with the defensemen, who cut our goals-against in half over that stretch. Lapper also made the locker room look like the Red Wings’. When the players arrived for game nights, they entered an immaculate locker room, with hockey tape stacked in pyramids and their jerseys hanging up in their stalls, with their name and number facing them.

He loved the players, and they loved him. The best part is, both sides knew it.

The players proved it after our second season, when they voted unanimously for Lapper to receive the Unsung Hero award. I’d never seen a coach win a player’s award before. The picture of Lapper with the trophy in his hands, looking down, too choked up to speak, tells you just about all you need to know about the man – and what the players thought of him.

After our third season, Lapper’s world opened up. He moved into his own place, he enrolled in nursing school, and he even appeared in the pages of Car & Driver magazine, where he worked on the side. But the highlight, for him, was seeing his little brother Kevin play on our spring team. The first night they were on the same bench, Kevin notched two assists.

After the game, Lapper went back to his parents’ house for dinner, and gushed about Kevin’s play. For Lapper, life didn’t get much better than that.

Early the next morning, June 25, 2003, I got a call from Lapper’s mom. She told me Mike had been in a car accident the night before, and he had died.

Of course, I was in disbelief – and when I gathered the players later that day in our locker room, they were in disbelief, too. For most of them, Lapper was the first person they were close to who had died. It was brutal.

So many people showed up for Lapper’s funeral, dozens had to stand in the foyer, listening through speakers. We named the Unsung Hero award, our locker room and a scholarship in Lapper’s honor. But ultimately, nothing we could do could lessen our loss.

At his gravesite, in the shadows of Huron High and the V.A. Hospital, where Lapper volunteered, the pastor said a few words. When he finished, I escorted Lapper’s parents down to their car. Then I walked back up the gentle slope, where I saw our players walking down, without their gold ties. This was not how we do it, I thought, especially on this day of all days. But, for once, I said nothing.

One of our captains, Chris Fragner, came up to me, red-eyed, and put his arm over my shoulders. With his other hand he pinched the knot of my tie, and said, “Coach, we have a place for these.” He walked me back to the gravesite, where I saw five dozen gold ties draped over Lapper’s casket.

And that’s when I knew: Lapper’s legacy was not having his name on a locker room door or on a trophy or on a scholarship.

It was helping dozens of boys become men – something they carry with them to this day.

About the writer: Ann Arbor resident John U. Bacon is the author of “Bo’s Lasting Lessons” and “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football” – both national bestsellers. His upcoming book, “Fourth and Long: The Future of College Football,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in September 2013. You can follow him on Twitter (@Johnubacon), and at johnubacon.com.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of columnists like John U. Bacon. 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!

Bob Miller, right, is the new chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. To the left is Deb Polich, executive director of the nonprofit Arts Alliance. They were attending the March 15 meeting of the city council’s public art committee, which is developing revisions to the city’s public art ordinance. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners voted to accept a memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project and to approve Sarah Gay as a volunteer project manager. Her duties would be to lead efforts for city council approval, donor relations and fundraising. John Kotarski advocated for less involvement from AAPAC, saying he hoped to streamline the project.

However, other commissioners felt it should be handled like other projects, with oversight by AAPAC. The proposal is for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. The city’s market manager, Sarah DeWitt, attended the March 7 meeting and will help coordinate the project.

Commissioners also voted to increase the honorariums for artists who have been selected as finalists for a $400,000 project at the East Stadium bridge. The overall project amount remains unchanged, but honorariums were raised from $2,000 to $3,000 for each of the four finalists: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. They will be in town on April 1 for a site visit and public open house.

Another effort that’s in the early phases got a vote of support from commissioners, but no financial commitment at this point. The project will use old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which artists and community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council. AAPAC is involved only in a supportive role, to help with public engagement.

The role of public engagement was part of a discussion regarding AAPAC’s annual public art plan, which is due to the city council on April 1. Some commissioners expressed frustration at the process, given the uncertainty of the public art program’s future. Ultimately, they gave guidance to Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to draft a plan that includes projects in highly-visible, highly-used locations, currently underserved in terms of public art.

The March 7 meeting also included the election of officers. Bob Miller was elected the new chair, replacing Marsha Chamberlin. Kotarski abstained from voting. He noted that the commission will soon be at only 40% capacity – a reference to the fact that there are three vacancies on the nine-member commission, with an additional resignation expected by Wiltrud Simbuerger in the near future.

Two of those vacancies will likely be filled shortly. Nominations are on the city council’s March 18 agenda for confirmation: Nick Zagar, an artist and commercial real estate agent who serves on the Ann Arbor Art Center board; and Ashlee Arder, programs coordinator at ArtServe Michigan.

All of these actions come in the context of the city council’s ongoing review of the city’s public art program, which began in early December of 2012. This article begins with a report on the most recent meeting of the council’s public art committee on Friday, March 15. An update of their work will be attached to the council’s March 18 agenda as an item of communication. Their next committee meeting is scheduled for March 28.

Revisions to Public Art Program

A five-member city council committee has been meeting since December 2012 to develop recommendations for the city’s public art program and possible revisions to two city ordinances that affect that program – Chapter 8 (organization of boards and commissions) and Chapter 24 (public art).

The work traces back to Dec. 3, 2012, when the city council voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program, except for projects that are already underway. Unless extended by the council, the moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.

Assistant city attorney Christopher Frost and Marsha Chamberlin of the Ann Arbor public art commission talked before the start of the March 15 council committee meeting on public art.

At that same Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, councilmembers appointed a council committee to review the public art program. Committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). [For background see Chronicle coverage: "City to Seek Feedback on Public Art Program," "Council's Public Art Committee Begins Work," as well as an update on the committee's work provided in the reports of AAPAC's Jan. 23, 2013 and Feb. 27, 2013 meetings.]

The committee is on track to recommend eliminating the city’s Percent for Art funding mechanism, which has been a cornerstone for the public art program. That approach required that 1% of each city capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, be set aside for public art. An alternative strategy – “baking in” art and architectural enhancements for each project, without a required percentage of funding – is likely to be proposed.

Most recently, the committee met on Friday, March 15 to discuss the latest draft of ordinance changes and recommendations. Also attending the meeting were former AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin; new AAPAC chair Bob Miller; Deb Polich, executive director of the Arts Alliance; Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford; and Christopher Frost, assistant city attorney.

Much of the March 15 discussion focused on two main issues: (1) the public art administrator, and (2) a possible survey using the city’s A2 Open City Hall website.

Revisions to Public Art Program: Administration

Sabra Briere began the meeting by saying that the major item they needed to address related to administration. The city attorney’s office had indicated that a city employee can’t be involved in fundraising. Because that was originally conceived of as a major component of a public art administrator’s job, it raised the question: How should the program’s administration be handled?

Margie Teall asked how other cities in Michigan dealt with this issue. Deb Polich replied that as far as she knew, Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan with a public art program.

There was discussion about whether the city could contract with an outside entity to administer the program. If so, to what extent would those same constraints on city employees apply? Polich observed that in contracting with an entity like the Arts Alliance, which is a 501(c)3 entity, the contract could explicitly lay out the responsibilities and constraints under which an administrator would operate.

Briere cited one concern about using a contract employee: Would that person be able to work seamlessly with city staff? Christopher Taylor felt that wouldn’t be a problem. He likened it to the situation with The Conservation Fund, which has been contracted to manage the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs. The Conservation Fund, based in Washington D.C., has managed those programs since they launched – after voters approved a 30-year 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation millage in 2003. Ginny Trocchio is the local Conservation Fund staff person who works full-time at city hall.

City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that there are other full-time contract employees who’ve worked for years at the city, in a variety of departments.

Taylor said his main interest is in having a full-time administrator, and that there be a way to solicit donations for public art. Crawford explained that the city can accept donations, and those donations would be tax deductible. But those donations aren’t solicited by city staff, he said. The city staff can inform and educate, but can’t actively fundraise. It also becomes difficult to track donations and manage donor expectations, he said, if the quantity increases.

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Margie Teall and Sabra Briere at the March 15 meeting of the council’s public art committee.

Polich suggested that if an outside entity had a contract with the city to administer the public art program, that entity could raise money then gift it back to the city. That arrangement could be specified in the contract. Steve Kunselman described it as the “privatization” of public art administration, and he didn’t think it needed to be laid out in detail in the ordinance.

Crawford indicated that there might be more flexibility if the city contracts with an organization, rather than directly with an individual.

Taylor advocated for letting city administrator Steve Powers work out the details. For his part, Taylor wanted to recommend that the city needs a full-time public art administrator, and that there should be a fundraising element involved. He didn’t care how that happened. After two years, if the work isn’t getting done in a satisfactory way, the city can revisit the arrangement and try something else, he said.

Teall also indicated her desire for a full-time administrator. Briere said she didn’t want to commit to that, and also isn’t willing to commit general fund dollars to pay for a public art administrator. She noted that the committee’s recommendations don’t deal with the issue of how to fund an administrator’s position. “We’ll look to wiser heads to help figure that out,” she said.

Revisions to Public Art Program: Open City Hall

When the committee first began meeting in late 2012, Sally Petersen had advocated surveying residents about how the city should deal with the public art program, or whether it should even continue. Lisa Wondrash, the city’s communications manager, attended a meeting in early January to describe A2 Open City Hall, an online system for soliciting feedback. Some councilmembers – in particular, Margie Teall – were reluctant to do any surveys, indicating that it would not be the best way to get feedback. The idea was never pursued.

On March 15, Sabra Briere again brought up the possibility of the A2 Open City Hall survey, noting that the committee had never reached a decision on it. Petersen said she felt that the window of opportunity had closed on that, since the committee had already nearly completed its work. Anecdotally, she said she’d heard that the committee was on the right track.

There was discussion about what types of questions might be asked if they were to use the A2 Open City Hall, and about the timing of such a survey. Petersen feared that if the survey were posted now, it would raise more questions and cause more confusion – because there were still a lot of unknowns. She suggested holding off on a decision until the next committee meeting, and other committee members agreed.

Revisions to Public Art Program: Next Steps

The council committee has set its next meeting for Thursday, March 28 at city hall starting at 11:30 a.m. Before then, the draft recommendations and revisions to the public art ordinance will be attached to the council’s March 18 meeting agenda as an item of communication. [.pdf of draft recommendations & ordinance revisions at start of March 15 meeting] [.pdf of draft recommendation & ordinance revisions reflecting changes at the March 15 meeting]

Because March 18 will be the last council meeting before the April 1 expiration of the moratorium on public art spending, it’s possible the council will take action to extend the moratorium. The committee doesn’t plan to make a formal recommendation to the council until April, possibly at its meeting on April 15.

Coleman Jewett Memorial

The agenda for the special March 7 AAPAC meeting included a resolution to accept the Coleman Jewett memorial as an official AAPAC project and to approve Sarah Gay as a volunteer project manager. Her duties would be to lead efforts for city council approval, donor relations and fundraising.

Sarah DeWitt, manager of the Ann Arbor public market, attended AAPAC’s March 7 special meeting.

Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private donor has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

This project was discussed at AAPAC’s Feb. 27, 2013 meeting, but no action was taken then. John Kotarski had encouraged Gay to take on the project. At the Feb. 27 meeting Kotarski had said he didn’t see the need for AAPAC to get involved – saying he didn’t want the commission to be an “impediment.”

Gay is an arts administrator who grew up in Ann Arbor, but who doesn’t currently live here. She has attended some of the early meetings of the Ann Arbor city council committee that’s working on revisions to the city’s public art program.

During the discussion on March 7, Kotarski raised the same concerns about AAPAC’s involvement, saying it might simplify things if Gay worked directly with Sarah DeWitt, the city’s market manager.

DeWitt, who attended the March 7 meeting, indicated that she would work with anyone who was designated to manage this project. The farmers market is part of the city’s parks system, so the final donation would need to be made to the parks system and likely be vetted through the park advisory commission. But city staff cannot be involved in soliciting the funds. DeWitt said she could work with Gay or anyone else to determine the best location for the memorial, as well as other issues related to installing the memorial.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that she’s received estimates indicating it would cost about $25,000 for the bronzing, and perhaps a total of $50,000 for all aspects of the project. She felt it was important to define the project clearly, set a fundraising goal, and challenge the community to meet it. There was additional discussion about the logistics of handling the funding, such as whether donations would be made to a pass-through account managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, on behalf of the city. There was a consensus that those details would need input from the city’s finance staff.

Both the parks & recreation unit as well as AAPAC have policies for accepting donations and gifts. From AAPAC’s guidelines:

C. Donations and Supplemental Sources of Funding
If supplemental sources of funding are used for public art projects, including grants, private donations, land, and in-kind services, AAPAC will identify the private interests or other restrictions associated with such funding and review the development of the public art projects for which the funding is used to ensure compliance with donor intent and other restrictions. [.pdf of complete AAPAC guidelines]

Kotarski reported that the private donor who pledged $5,000 for the project has stipulated that the memorial must be a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s actual Adirondack chairs. So in a sense, Jewett is the artist, Kotarski said – noting that it wouldn’t be a stylized work by another artist. He said that mayor John Hieftje had told him the $5,000 donation would be withdrawn if the donor’s stipulation wasn’t met.

Kotarski also lobbied for Gay to operate with independence from AAPAC. She should be able to make decisions related to the project and should not have to come to AAPAC for approval, he said. It’s a matter of control. “The less control we have and the more she has, the better,” Kotarski said. “She doesn’t want to fail.”

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski.

Chamberlin replied that based on her 35 years of experience in arts administration, “you don’t just turn someone loose on a project, no matter how good they are.” [Chamberlin recently retired as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center.] AAPAC should have input and approve things like the solicitation materials, she said. Another factor is the fact that Gay doesn’t live in the community at this point, so it’s important to have AAPAC involved.

Connie Brown supported handling the project like any other AAPAC project, with a task force that would work with Gay and make recommendations to the full commission. Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator who also attended AAPAC’s March 7 meeting – said he didn’t want to cast aspersions on Gay, but he recommended that AAPAC stay involved, since they would, in a way, be putting their reputation on the line.

DeWitt also encouraged AAPAC to describe the memorial for Jewett in terms of his contributions to the community “writ large,” not only as a vendor at the farmers market. There are a lot of longtime vendors who have passed away, she said, and unless AAPAC envisioned bronzed heads of lettuce in the future, it’s important to keep the Jewett’s broader impact as part of these discussions.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the Jewett memorial as an AAPAC project, and to designate Sarah Gay as the volunteer project manager.

East Stadium Artist Honorarium

On the agenda was an item to increase the honorariums for artists who have been selected as finalists for a $400,000 project at the East Stadium bridge. A task force has selected four artists as finalists, who have been invited to an April 1 site visit/open house. The finalists are: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass.

The proposal was to increase the previous $2,000 honorarium to $3,000 for each artist. Bob Miller, a commissioner who serves on the task force, said task force members felt the compensation should be increased because artists were being asked to make two site visits and a proposal. In addition to Miller, members of the task force/selection panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely.

John Kotarski supported the increase, but wondered how the task force had arrived at this new amount. Miller replied that one of the finalists had suggested the increase, and that it seemed reasonable based on the cost of airfare and other expenses. It’s still not much, Miller said, but it’s something.

Kotarski asked if the task force had compared the honorarium to projects in other cities. No, Miller replied. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that the $3,000 amount seems to be in line with what other communities offer, on average.

The overall project budget will not be increased. It now breaks down as follows:

• Artist contract: $360,000
• Artist honorarium ($3,000 each): $12,000
• Dedication: $4,000
• Signage: $3,000
• Walk through and other event expenses: $1,500
• Project management: $6,500
• Other admin costs: $1,000
• Contingency $12,000

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to increase the East Stadium bridge honorarium to $3,000 per artist.

Community Canoe Art

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update on a canoe art project she’s working on with other organizations. It’s a project she got involved with before she retired as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center – not in her capacity as an AAPAC member, she said. [.pdf of canoe project memo]

Marsha Chamberlin led her final meeting on March 7 as chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

The project will use old aluminum canoes that the city of Ann Arbor is getting rid of from the Argo canoe livery. There will be two components: (1) artists will be selected to create about a dozen original, permanent works (lasting more than five years); and (2) school groups or business teams will create another dozen or so works using the canoes.

According to the project memo, Cheryl Saam – facilities supervisor for the city’s canoe liveries – will oversee fundraising and work with a graphic designer to create a logo. [It's unclear how her role in fundraising will be defined, however, in light of discussions at the council's public art committee meeting that indicated city employees can't directly solicit donations for this kind of project.]

Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council. The CVB will handle publicity, and the MSAA will deal with the logistics of placing the completed artwork at locations throughout the downtown, Chamberlin said.

The request to AAPAC is to help with advocacy and public engagement for the project, Chamberlin said, and to coordinate the kickoff to coincide with the dedication of artwork at the Argo Cascades. The canoe project is anticipated to be on public display between August and November of 2014.

Chamberlin said she’s talked with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation about setting up a pass-through account to accept donations. The goal is to raise about $100,000 for the project.

John Kotarski wondered why this project is being handled differently from the Coleman Jewett memorial. He felt that the Jewett memorial could also be an independent project like this canoe art, with minimal involvement from AAPAC.

He also said it was “challenging” for Chamberlin to talk to commissioners about this project while she was chair of AAPAC. When she used the word “we,” he said, it was difficult to know if she was speaking on behalf of AAPAC or for the project organizers.

Chamberlin replied that she was bringing this project forward just like any other similar effort. She saw it as analogous with the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program, which will be installing replicas of artwork in downtown Ann Arbor later this month. The project didn’t require AAPAC approval, she said, but the commission got involved and supported it.

Kotarski said he’s prefer that projects like this – the Jewett memorial, the DIA partnership, and the canoe project – not have to go through the AAPAC process of forming a task force and issuing requests for proposals. He wanted to streamline the process as much as possible. In terms of the canoe project, he didn’t think that AAPAC could add anything other than an “Atta boy!”

Chamberlin responded, saying it’s important for the canoe project to involve as many entities as possible, including AAPAC. It would require no financial commitment from AAPAC, although some staff time would be involved. It’s also possible that AAPAC might be approached in the future with a funding request, assuming the city’s public art program continues.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to collaborate on the community canoe art project, with no financial commitment at this time.

Annual Art Plan

Also on the agenda for the March 7 special meeting was discussion of AAPAC’s annual art plan. The city’s public art ordinance stipulates that a public art annual plan is due to the city council on April 1. This year, it would cover activities that AAPAC intends to pursue in fiscal year 2014, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Brown.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, is developing a draft and was seeking input from commissioners at the meeting to shape the plan. His goal is to present a draft for their approval at AAPAC’s March 27 meeting.

This item has been discussed at previous meetings. At AAPAC’s meeting on Feb. 27, 2013, Deb Gosselin – who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) – talked with commissioners about that process, and how it might coordinate with AAPAC’s annual plan.

The CIP has been important to AAPAC because funding for the Percent for Art program has come from the city’s capital projects. Under the city’s Percent of Art program, 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. And even though it now appears that the Percent for Art funding approach could be eliminated, the goal will still likely be to start planning the public art component of a project as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Seagraves had identified 30 projects in the CIP as having longer-term potential. [.pdf of long-term capital projects for possible public art] He had also identified a smaller list of 12 projects that AAPAC might consider for inclusion in its annual plan for fiscal 2014. [.pdf of FY 2014 CIP projects for possible public art] Those near-term CIP projects include the replacement of street lights along Main Street, the creation of a park at 721 N. Main, and renovations at the wastewater treatment plant, among others.

On March 7, Marsha Chamberlin noted that the process for developing this year’s annual plan has been met with frustration by some commissioners. Despite the public art program’s uncertain future, she said it’s important to have priorities for the coming year – even though the funding mechanism for public art might be changed.

John Kotarski referenced an email he’d sent on March 2 to commissioners and Seagraves, responding to a request from Seagraves to prioritize possible projects for the annual plan. [.pdf of Kotarski's email] Kotarski pointed out that AAPAC had embarked last year on a “quadrant” approach to developing public art projects.

By way of background, the approach uses four quadrants of Ann Arbor that are designated in the city master plan’s “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants] Two or more of the nine AAPAC members were to be responsible for each quadrant, charged with soliciting input from residents in selecting public art.

In his email, Kotarski raised concerns that now the quadrant approach, as envisioned, isn’t being used to prioritize projects for the annual plan. He cited several other concerns as well. An excerpt from his email:

We also have no standards (criteria) by which we are measuring art or locations. We have no way of measuring our process against best practices of successful communities elsewhere. All of you know that this has been a concern of mine for some time and it relates to art selection task forces as well. We were just informed that we should additionally consider prioritizing CIP projects. I am not certain that we share an understanding of what our duty is as a Commission much less an understanding of how we are to prioritize this list. I doubt if anyone can randomly select five locations on the list and offer the advantages and disadvantages for public art to be placed there.

For the time being, I propose we tell the administration that we want public art at every bus stop and ask the AATA to prioritize by ridership. That we want public art at every park and playground and to ask the Parks to prioritize by use. That we want public art in the downtown business district and ask the DDA to prioritize by their master plan. That we want public art at every major transportation artery into the city and let the Roads prioritize by usage. And that we want public art at every new CIP project and let the city staff prioritize. We are not organized well enough to do any better.

Several Commissioner have expressed to me that we have great ideas but lack follow through. My read of the quadrant meetings are that fewer than 10 residents showed up collectively and some of those were not from the quadrant in which the meeting was held. How can we remotely suggest that these 10 residents are the basis for our decisions? We were to assemble task forces for each quadrant that would focus on the pubic art opportunities and needs of their quadrant. That was not done.

We do not know how other cities do this. We do not know what residents want. We do not know how to evaluate public art or public art locations. I for one do not know how our proposed new leaders plan to change this. We do not even know what our new charge will be from the City Council.

We have over 40% of our Commission vacant, we lack the staff that everyone agrees we need, and we do not have a clear consensus among ourselves about what our job is. The adage “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” comes to mind. I know we have a deadline coming up, but to me this document does not serve to simplify the decision-making process but rather confuses it.

Some think we are a gatekeeper for public art in the city, yet I believe many on the City Council think differently. Many on City Council want us to grow public art from outside a taxpayer base and empower other groups to work independently. They want us to simplify and streamline the process. We at the least need that clarified before we proceed to recommend a public art plan.

Connie Brown said she was one of the commissioners who’s been “grouchy” about this annual plan process. AAPAC had put a process in place – using the quadrant approach – to get public input. But then the city council had put a public art millage on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot, and that proposal had been defeated. The council then had voted to put the public art spending on hold, she noted.

She wondered if it would be appropriate to set broad goals – like choosing projects in underserved, highly visible areas – as an interim measure, until the city council decides the fate of the public art program.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, reminded commissioners that under the existing public art ordinance, AAPAC has a charge to produce an annual plan. He said he wouldn’t speculate about what the council might do regarding changes to the ordinance, or presume that councilmembers will take a certain direction.

Brown noted that AAPAC was told to stop its processes, and so they did. As soon as they have permission to start up again, they’ll be ready to prioritize and move forward. Until then, she said, “we’re throwing darts with our eyes closed.”

Seagraves asked that commissioners provide some general criteria for projects they’d like to see within the next fiscal year. After further discussion, the group reached consensus on the following attributes for public art projects in FY 2014: projects that are in highly visible, highly-used locations currently underserved in terms of public art, and that are distributed throughout the four quadrants of the city. Seagraves plans to take those priorities and draft an annual plan for AAPAC to consider at its March 27 meeting.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Officer Elections, Vacancies

The last order of business on March 7 was officer elections. Marsha Chamberlin, who has served as AAPAC’s chair since April of 2011, announced that two commissioners – Bob Miller and Malverne Winborne, AAPAC’s vice chair – were interested in the position of chair. Winborne did not attend the March 7 meeting.

Wiltrud Simbuerger is planning to resign from the Ann Arbor public art commission, though she has not yet announced a date for her departure.

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January. But elections were pushed back at both the Jan. 23, 2013 and Feb. 27, 2013 meetings because attendance was low. On Feb. 27, Chamberlin indicated that commissioners would receive ballots in the mail, with the outcome to be reported at the March 27 meeting. However, the election was on the March 7 special meeting agenda and took place then, with five of the six commissioners present.

John Kotarski said he felt compelled to abstain. Soon, the commission will be at only 40% capacity, he said – a reference to the fact that there are three vacancies on the nine-member commission, with an additional resignation expected by Wiltrud Simbuerger in the near future. He said there is no compelling reason to vote now, and it’s a mistake to choose leadership when there will soon be new members.

Earlier in the meeting, Chamberlin had reported that two nominations for AAPAC had been brought forward by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s March 4 meeting: Nick Zagar, an artist and commercial real estate agent who serves on the Ann Arbor Art Center board; and Ashlee Arder, programs coordinator at ArtServe Michigan. Zagar is being nominated to replace Theresa Reid, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015. Arder is replacing Cathy Gendron for a term ending Jan. 20, 2016. The nominations are on the council’s March 18 agenda for confirmation.

At AAPAC’s March 7 meeting, Chamberlin responded to Kotarski’s concerns by saying that AAPAC has a legal obligation to hold elections. Kotarski disputed that, and indicated that Chamberlin simply might not want to continue serving as chair.

Other members proceeded to vote.

Outcome: Bob Miller was elected chair. Malverne Winborne will continue to serve as vice chair.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

On Sunday morning, Sept. 11, 2011, Ann Arbor firefighters and police officers paused to honor those who lost their lives on 9/11 ten years ago.

I remember hearing the news while working the receiving dock at Busch’s Main Street grocery store – smatterings of information relayed from various delivery drivers.

My job as a receiving clerk was to be generally skeptical of this group. I was trained to ask basic questions. Where are the stale loaves of bread you say you pulled off the shelf and put on the outgoing racks? Where are the five cases of olive oil that your invoice says are supposed to be on this incoming pallet?

And through the day, the stories of news reports they’d heard or seen were just inconsistent enough that I felt certain that when I arrived home after my shift, I would learn that it was something else that had actually happened, instead of airliners crashing into the World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse.

Of course, it was not something else.

So now, 10 years later, we owe it to those who lost their lives, to those who saved some of those lives, and to ourselves, to pause briefly … before we continue going about our business, doing those things that make us who we are.

Part of what makes songwriters who they are is to write songs. So Kitty Donohoe wrote a song on that day: “There are No Words.” And she was invited to perform it at the Pentagon memorial dedication three years ago on Sept. 11, 2008.

The YouTube video of Donohoe’s performance shows a national stage, in front of a national television audience.

On a smaller, local stage a month before, Donohoe celebrated the release of her new CD – by performing at my neighborhood bar, the Old Town Tavern, at the corner of Liberty and Ashley streets in Ann Arbor. It wasn’t a special, unusual event – the Old Town hosts live music every Sunday night.

Backing her on mandolin and vocals on the Pentagon stage, as well as at the Old Town, was David Mosher, who’s another familiar name in local area music venues. Donohoe was also joined on the Pentagon stage by celloist Pooh Stevenson from Owosso, Mich.

Some readers will pause today for 9/11 in a private prayer, or by attending a public commemoration like the one hosted by Ann Arbor firefighters and police officers in front of the downtown fire station this morning.

I will pause first by listening to local musician Kitty Donohoe sing – by downloading the .mp3 version of her song. And later I will stop by the Old Town, and pause again to raise a pint.

There Are No Words

there are no words there is no song
is there a balm that can heal these wounds that will last a lifetime long
and when the stars have burned to dust
hand in hand we still will stand because we must
…
[complete lyrics and .mp3 file]

]]> http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/09/11/column-pausing-to-listen-on-911/feed/ 0 http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/05/05/column-god-bless-you-mr-harwell/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=column-god-bless-you-mr-harwell http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/05/05/column-god-bless-you-mr-harwell/#comments Wed, 05 May 2010 05:56:30 +0000 John U. Bacon http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=42677

John U. Bacon

Editor’s note: Ernie Harwell died on Tuesday after fighting cancer for nearly a year. He was 92. Portions of this column were published in John U. Bacon’s September 2009 tribute to Harwell.

This past September, the Detroit Tigers’ beloved broadcaster, Ernie Harwell, announced that he had contracted an incurable form of cancer, and would not seek treatment.

For everybody who knew him, or felt like they did – which, really, is just about all of us – it hit hard. We were losing our baseball buddy, our grandfather, our friend.

The only person who didn’t seem shaken by the news was Ernie Harwell. He said, “Whatever’s in store, I’m ready for a new adventure. That’s the way I look at it.”

Harwell was a deeply religious man, but he never wore it on his sleeve. He simply lived it. He was, truly, at peace.

But I was not. Like just about every sports writer who knew him, I felt compelled to write about him.

I wrote about our family trips up north, which were always accompanied by Harwell’s comfortable cadences filling our station wagon. Harwell didn’t simply broadcast baseball games. He turned them into stories. In Harwell’s world, a batter didn’t merely strike out. He was “called out for excessive window shopping,” or “caught standing there like the house by the side of the road.”

Unlike today’s announcers, who prattle on with mindless patter and pointless stats, Harwell treated his listeners to healthy doses of “companionable silences,” something Zen masters refer to as the delicious “space between the notes.” Harwell often said the quiet allowed the listeners to enjoy the sounds of the ballpark itself, which he felt was richer than his own voice. When Harwell called the game, you not only heard the crack of the bat, you heard the peanut vendors.

Harwell was born in Georgia in 1918, a time and a place that valued relaxed conversations on the porch. He grew up listening to Atlanta Crackers games on a crystal radio set. The power of those broadcasts probably hit Harwell more than most. His dad suffered from multiple sclerosis, and rarely left his wheel chair. The highlight of his day was listening to those ball games.

At age 29, Harwell became the Crackers’ play-by-play man. Just two years later, in 1948, Harwell caught the ear of the Brooklyn Dodgers. They were so impressed, they traded their catcher for Harwell, making him the only broadcaster in baseball history to be traded for a player.

Harwell went on to set the record for most games broadcast, including 41 seasons for the Tigers. When Sports Illustrated picked its all-time baseball dream team a few years ago, they included a spot for their favorite radio announcer. They bypassed some real legends – like Mel Allen and Vin Scully and even Red Barber – to tap Harwell, a true Hall of Famer.

He told me Willie Mays was the best player he’s ever seen, that Jackie Robinson was the most courageous, and that a lovable Tigers pitcher named Mark “The Bird” Fidrych, who used to get on his hands and knees to groom the mound, “was probably the most charismatic guy we’ve ever had here in Detroit. A real breath of fresh air.”

In 1997, I was lucky enough to cover spring training for The Detroit News. My first day I was sitting on a bench, watching infield practice, when Ernie Harwell sidled up next to me. We sat there, watching baseball, and chatting like old friends – just the way everyone one of us imagined we already were, listening to him on the radio all those years. He invited me for dinner that night with his wife Lulu. We enjoyed a long talk, and he picked up the tab.

I wrote a story about him nine years ago. On the morning of September 11, 2001, I woke up to the phone ringing. It was Ernie Harwell, calling to thank me for the article. Who does that? That day, of course, soon turned tragic, but Harwell’s little act of humanity will always stand in my mind as such a poignant contrast to everything that followed that day.

A few times over the years, I invited him to call in to a talk show I was hosting. “Just ask,” he always said, “And I’ll come running.”

Eight months ago, I closed my piece by saying, I wish there was something I could do for him now. If he just asked, I’d come running.

I had to deliver that line in the studio a few times before I got through it without getting too choked up. The next morning, after the piece ran, an old friend called to thank me. Who does that? Ernie Harwell, that’s who.

It’s a strange sensation, knowing it’s probably going to be the last time you’ll talk. I kept it short – I didn’t want to be greedy with his time – but I had to tell him how much I appreciated hearing from him. He said, “Well, John, we go back a loooong way. Thanks for the wonderful story. God bless you. Good bye.”

After we hung up, I sat there for a few minutes. We went back about 13 years – not really that long for a man who had friends going back more than a half-century – and I’m sure he read better stories than mine that week alone. But he still took the time to call.

So, thank you, Mr. Harwell, for all the wonderful stories.

God bless you.

Good bye.

About the author: John U. Bacon lives in Ann Arbor and has written for Time, the New York Times, and ESPN Magazine, among others. His most recent book is “Bo’s Lasting Lessons,” a New York Times and Wall Street Journal business bestseller. Bacon teaches at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio; Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism; and the University of Michigan, where the students awarded him the Golden Apple Award for 2009. This commentary originally aired on Michigan Radio.

UM President Robben Fleming at a press conference during the Black Action Movement strike in March 1970. (Photo courtesy of Jay Cassidy.)

On March 12, 1968, Robben Wright Fleming was inaugurated as the ninth president of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. It was a time of great turmoil on college campuses across the country, especially at Michigan, which was in the vanguard of the radical student movement. Fleming had been hired to replace the retiring Harlan Hatcher largely because of the reputation he had built for controlling student unrest while chancellor at the University of Wisconsin.

Fleming’s background was as a labor negotiator, and he preferred to engage students in reasoned discussion and debate rather than send in the riot squad. As he related in his autobiography, “Tempests into Rainbows,” after learning of his interest in taking the top post at Michigan, the regents of the university invited him to the Pontchartrain Hotel in Detroit, where for two hours they talked mainly about how he would deal with student disruptions.

Fleming explained to the regents that he “thought force must be avoided insofar as humanly possible, that indignities and insults could be endured if they averted violence, and that … these problems would last for some unspecified time, but that they would eventually end.” The next day he was offered the presidency.

Fleming assumed the helm in Ann Arbor in 1968 – the most turbulent year yet in an increasingly tempestuous and troubled decade. Over the next three years he would face an escalating series of crises that would severely test his negotiatory approach to student unrest. There were protests against classified war research and the ROTC. There was agitation for the creation of a student-run bookstore. There were three bombs exploded on or near campus. There were three nights of rioting on South University Avenue, a serial killer stalking campus co-eds, and perhaps the most challenging event of his term, the BAM strike of March 1970.

The Black Action Movement was a loose coalition of African-American students and faculty united in the common purpose of expanding the minority presence on campus. BAM called for a campus-wide strike until the university agreed to meet their demands – chief among which was a commitment to increase black enrollment from 3% to 10% over the next four years.

Demonstrators disrupt a ceremony at Hill Auditorium during the Black Action Movement strike of March 1970. President Robben Fleming stands at the podium. (Photo courtesy of Jay Cassidy.)

The BAM strike was led by black students and faculty, and remained so throughout its nearly two-week duration; but white radical groups quickly became involved in a supporting role, and before long the normal operations of the university were being significantly impaired. Negotiations were conducted per the president’s usual style, but as days passed and no agreement was reached, tensions on both sides began to mount. Fleming was under increasing pressure to end the strike by force.

Just as it seemed that the situation might boil over into violence, however, there was a breakthrough at the negotiating table. An agreement was struck, the strike was called off, and bloodshed was averted. Fleming’s handling of the BAM dispute is often counted as one of his finest moments.

In that regard it is interesting to note that praise for Fleming’s presidency at Michigan tends to consist not of positives but of negatives – what he did not do. He did not lose his temper when dealing with student radicals. He did not in general respond to disruptions with force, as others might have done, and as some encouraged him to do. He did not call out the National Guard. He did not escalate conflicts until someone was killed.

Of course Fleming did on occasion use force to resolve standoffs with students. But he seemed to have an earnest desire to avoid conflict whenever possible, and when resorting to force he planned the action so as to minimize violence – for example, working to ensure that demonstrators occupying a building had an opportunity to escape out the back way as the police moved in.

Fleming’s seemingly conciliatory approach – as well as his public statements against the war in Vietnam – tended to give the impression that he sympathized with the student protesters and their causes.

But the president himself was the first to say that he acted as he did not out of sympathy but because of his reasoned judgment that a more extreme response would ultimately be counter-productive. As chancellor at Madison, Fleming drew the national spotlight after using his own personal funds to post bail for 11 student demonstrators who had been arrested following their occupation of a university office. He later explained that he did this not out of compassion but rather to prevent the students from becoming martyrs to their cause.

After Fleming’s death on Jan. 11, 2010, at age 93, many eulogies appeared lauding his tolerant, enlightened leadership during what was probably the most calamitous period in the history of the University of Michigan. Almost without exception these were based on Fleming’s own view of events, as put forth in his memoir, and the recollections of his colleagues and friends in the administration.

Those who faced him from the other side of the fence sometimes remember Robben Fleming a bit differently. A number of former activists who had occasion to interact with the late president provided their thoughts and impressions via phone and e-mail.

Steve Nissen: Human Rights Party

I was very engaged in activism at the University of Michigan when Robben Fleming assumed the presidency in 1968. He came to the job with a reputation for adeptly handling the turbulent student protests while at the University of Wisconsin. I found him more approachable than his predecessors and willing to engage in discussions with student leaders, which distinguished him from the aloof attitudes of other university leaders.

He didn’t make huge changes, but his openness gained him some increased respect and cooperation from the more moderate student elements, which I was not. However, he was not popular with tough-minded student activists because we were all functioning in a highly polarized environment and there wasn’t much room for compromise.

In my case, we disagreed, but our relationship was not disagreeable. He was soft-spoken and never strident in relating to student leaders, but he did not yield much, either. Given the times, he was probably as good a choice as possible as a college president for a troubled era.

Bill Ayers: Students for a Democratic Society

I had an interesting relationship with Robben Fleming and it continued long, long after he was president of the University of Michigan. We reconnected after I became a professor at the University of Illinois. He was in Chicago doing some work with the MacArthur Foundation. We had coffee and that became something we did periodically.

He told me years later that one of the things that was difficult for him was not the heat that he was getting from the students, it was the heat from the trustees [regents]. The trustees looked to people like Clark Kerr [at the University of California] and thought that that was the smart way to go, to hammer these students. Fleming, I think largely because of his background as a negotiator and a labor professor and so on, was more inclined to negotiate. He wasn’t a kind of Neanderthal standing at the gate insisting he had the only view. He always wanted to know what you thought.

The night that I remember most vividly was the last day of March, 1968. Lyndon Johnson had gone on television and announced that he was not going to run for president, and he would work to end the war in Vietnam. And we poured out of our apartments and we had this kind of spontaneous rally that raced through the streets of Ann Arbor and ended up on the steps of his house there on South University.

I had a bullhorn and Fleming came out and he had a bullhorn and what he said that night I remember absolutely vividly. He said, “You’re to be congratulated. You’ve won a great victory. You’ve ended this war.” And I think he believed it that night. I know I believed it. A few months after that it was clear the war would not end, but would escalate. But on that night, March 31, 1968, in the middle of the night, standing outside his house with 1,500 students trampling the rose bushes, he was calm and he was clear and he was congratulatory and that’s the kind of guy he was.

I think he genuinely thought that the war was a mistake. I don’t think he had a critique or an analysis that was against imperialism like we did, but I think that he didn’t think that the war was a good thing. I think the evidence for him of why the war was not a good thing was that it was tearing up the country.

He wrote a memoir about those days and as I remember it, he said at one point that while he and I had differences, we were always fairly civil with each other. It struck me as funny when I read it because I was remembering that night of March 31, 1968, when I was basically shouting, “Fuck you, you motherfucker,” into a megaphone, and he remembers it as I was always reasonable. I don’t think I was always reasonable, but he was a pretty reasonable guy and I think he believed in the power of reason and the importance of evidence.

Madison Foster: Black Action Movement

I have respect for him, that’s the first thing I want to establish. Respect as a scholar, an intellectual, and after I negotiated for the Black Action Movement, I have respect for how he negotiated. And also how things came out, and how he followed up afterwards. When he did make promises when he negotiated, he delivered on them. So in that sense I have nothing but positives to say about Robben Fleming.

As a negotiator Fleming was good. At first he tried some divisive things, but that’s okay, that was the name of the game. It was leaked to the press that the strike was over, and many students heard the news and backed off, and we had to go back and regroup again. Fleming threatened us early on to call the National Guard, and I for one called his bluff by simply saying, “Well, I guess we’ll die,” and we walked out. I wasn’t going to negotiate under threat, so I called his bluff, and he didn’t bring in the National Guard. [This would have been about five weeks prior to the shootings at Kent State.]

From my understanding, one of the reasons Fleming was brought to Michigan was because of the general student conflict at Berkeley and other places, and the left radical organizing that had been going on at Michigan. They were expecting some conflict to come off from white students. They didn’t expect the conflict to be led by black minority students at the time.

I would say the BAM strike probably was one of the few successful, if not the only successful student strike of that period – in the sense that we got about 90% of the demands. But at the same time much of that was because of who Robben Fleming was.

Picketers in front of the University of Michigan's Hill Auditorium during the Black Action Movement strike of March 1970. (Photo courtesy of Jay Cassidy.)

I had the feeling that he was open to having more African-American students enrolled at the university, that he wasn’t opposed to it. I can’t say for sure. If I had to guess I would think he was personally sympathetic. But he was a true negotiator. Don’t forget that. He was all pro.

I would credit him with keeping the lid on generally – there weren’t any casualties at Michigan, in spite of the fact that Michigan was probably the second-most radical activist hotbed after Berkeley, during that period. During the BAM strike, I wouldn’t credit him for keeping the lid on, I would credit the BAM leadership. We used conflict, but we kept some of the hotheads from doing violent things, both black and white. But I credit Fleming for not escalating the conflict by calling in troopers, or by escalating his rhetoric. In that sense he handled the situation well.

I tried to get to him. I got to him a little bit, once. He got angry enough to get up from his chair. We tried to keep him off balance, but he was basically calm. That’s what I mean when I say he was a good negotiator – he was calculating, and he was basically very calm.

Overall, I’d have to say positive things about Fleming. That might not be what some people want to hear me say, but that’s what I would say. I would say it if he were alive, to him. In fact, I did say it to him.

Eric Chester: Students for a Democratic Society

My experiences with Fleming were generally not positive. I found him to be a rigid personality, unwilling and unable to engage in a genuine give and take. Of course, I completely disagreed with his political perspective, but, even given this, I found other university administrators to be more likeable personalities.

During the book store sit-in [of September 1969], I was sent by the sit-in contingent to speak to Fleming. He said he would not negotiate on the issue of a university-run bookstore until we evacuated the building. There was therefore nothing to talk about and I soon left to report back to the sit-in group that Fleming was unwilling to negotiate. We were then arrested, and at a meeting of the regents shortly afterward the administration caved in and created the bookstore. Pointless macho behavior by Fleming, but then I suppose that’s why they hired him in the first place.

I did not find Fleming to be courteous. I met him rarely in an informal, personal context since he made little effort to meet with student activists. When I did meet him, I found him to be a cold, calculating technocrat. I did not like him and I did not find him to be particularly competent in dealing with the issues we raised.

SDS activists were radicals and socialists. We saw ourselves as part of a larger movement for fundamental social change. Fleming was just a cog in the corporate hierarchy. It is difficult to see how we could have had two more different world views. Even on Vietnam, SDS called for immediate withdrawal from the start. Fleming was one of many corporate liberals who began to think it had been a mistake well after it began and were looking for a graceful way out.

Rennie Davis: Chicago Seven Defendant

Robben was a friend of my family. He knew my father, who was an economics professor at Michigan State. We spoke together at Hill Auditorium [in 1969] at a time when I was the “popular” speaker to the student anti-war audience and he came in to speak, did well, but it took a little courage on his part.

A rare president leading a great university from the courage of wisdom is my memory of Robben Fleming. In a time of student passion to change the world, I marveled at his ability to hold and honor the center when side-taking was all the rage. His spirit to see humanity in any side is a legacy that will inspire us always.

James Swan: Environmental Action for Survival

I recall being called to Fleming’s home on the day after the Kent State shootings. President Fleming quickly assembled a group of faculty and students who had been active on campus political events, and he sought their advice and support to prevent something like that from happening on campus. He was genuinely concerned about what had happened, and determined to avert something like that in Ann Arbor. The meeting was a very honest discussion with all people’s perspectives welcomed.

I always found Fleming to be an honest, sincere person who tried to lend a sense of dignity and open-mindedness to his position, as well as the university.

Gary Rothberger: Students for a Democratic Society

Robben Fleming was one of the first of a new type of university president, one hired not for the ability to charm alumni and faculty but rather one who could do crisis management. Whatever he believed personally, as president he acted to stop real change in the university while conveying an image of corporate liberalism. He was fairly good at seeming to want to resolve the issue, if not for the extremists and their unrealistic demands.

To deal with Fleming was to realize that he was a cold dude who didn’t care about anything else other than carrying out his assignment. He clearly disliked SDS, our ilk and our desire for democratizing society. And he clearly was determined to smash the student movement.

Robben Fleming during the June 1969 violent conflicts on South University in Ann Arbor. (Photo courtesy of Jay Cassidy.)

A particular example of both his ruthlessness and willingness to act as the hammer for cooperate liberalism occurred around 1970 or ’71 when one of the first UM lesbian organizations attempted to have a conference on campus. Fleming issued moralistic statements and refused to allow the conference to go on and refused to discuss the issue.

His false and much, much too belated public semi-opposition to the war not withstanding, I have no idea what his own personal views were on anything except that, eventually, you are what you do.

[On the second night of mayhem on South University in June 1969] two or three of us went to the presidential house. He came to the door and we told him that the police were creating a riot and were clubbing people and gassing them for no reason. He said that he did not see any “inappropriate” police behavior and that the cops wouldn’t gas people. I then tossed a gas canister into the foyer and asked whether he thought that was inappropriate. He sputtered and mouthed a few inanities and went back into the house.

A little while later he came out and made some sort on innocuous statement that meant nothing and he certainly was unwilling to call out the police for brutality. I had been in Mississippi, and in Detroit during some of the riots there. I know what extreme police brutality is and I’m not claiming that this was at the same level as some of that stuff. However, they were gassing people and clubbing people, doing it randomly and were obviously enjoying it. Fleming knew it, probably didn’t like it, but clearly was willing to ignore it because he thought to criticize it would have been politically unwise.

You are what you do. He did nothing when he could have spoken out.

Paul Soglin: Students for a Democratic Society (University of Wisconsin)

His greatest strength was his belief in himself and that rational discourse would carry the day. His weakness was accepting the Cold War rationalization that the state must prevail over independent thinking. He should have trusted his own beliefs and instincts.

Jim Toy: Ann Arbor Gay Liberation Front

We started the Ann Arbor Gay Liberation Front in the spring of 1970. Soon thereafter we got a message from the regents: “Will you please come to a regents’ meeting and tell the regents what Gay Liberation wants.” That day there must’ve been an overflow, because when I got there every seat was filled. So I said, “The regents have asked Gay Liberation to tell them what Gay Liberation wants, and I’m Jim Toy and I’m here to do that. Where should I sit?”

President Fleming, at the far end of the table, graciously stood up and said, “Mr. Toy, please have my chair.” So for the first and I would guess the last time in my life, I sat in the president’s chair at a regents’ meeting.

I told the regents what we wanted. Justice, in the sense of, for example, counselors trained to help people with concerns about sexual orientation. Changes in the curriculum. Changes to the university’s non-discrimination policy. And so on. And then they said thank you very much, and off I went. It would take more than twenty years before the regents would add sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy.

In 1970 Gay Liberation Front requested university space in which to have a statewide conference. We received a formal letter from President Fleming denying use of space. There was a picket outside the president’s house, as I recall, protesting the denial. But a vice president of the Student Government Council said, “That’s okay, I have the keys to the Student Activities Building.” And so we had the conference.

I remember a friend of mine in Gay Liberation went to the Diag and burned a Bible. And President Fleming happened to be walking by, and said, at least by report, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” That was the extent of it.

If he got riled, he continued to be polite. And some people have been reported to say that this was one of his great strengths.

The author would like to thank all those who contributed to the writing of this story, directly and indirectly, with special thanks to Will Hathaway for providing a copy of his invaluable dissertation, “Conflict Management and Leadership in Higher Education: A Case Study of University of Michigan President Robben W. Fleming.”

Alan Glenn is working on a documentary film about Ann Arbor in the ’60s. Visit the film’s website for more information.

Robben Fleming at the groundbreaking for the University of Michigan Power Center in April 1969. (Photo courtesy of Jay Cassidy.)