Possible alternate security configuration for Ann Arbor Justice Center. (The orientation of the diagram is with east at the top. Fifth Avenue is at the bottom of the diagram.) Estimated cost of changing to this configuration is about $225,000.

At the meeting, held in the hour before the regular city council meeting at 7 p.m., committee members were briefed on different options for modifying security at the building to improve public access. Currently, visitors to the Justice Center go through a security checkpoint very near the entrance to the building, off the Huron Street plaza. The building houses the 15th District Court as well as the city’s police department.

Among the options committee members were presented is the possible relocation of the airport-style screening station to a position closer to the elevators, on the Fifth Avenue side of the building. Estimated cost for the different options ranges from $30,000 to $225,000.

The work of generating different options came in the wake of concern by some city councilmembers about adequate access to a piece of art they had approved for purchase and installation in the lobby. Councilmembers weren’t content that visitors who wished merely to view the art would have to undergo security screening, and were skeptical that the art would be adequately visible from outside the building through the horizontal bands of etched glass on the Justice Center windows.

That piece of art is a suspended sculpture called “Radius,” by Ed Carpenter. It’s funded through the city’s Percent for Art public art program. Part of the council’s discussion on the artwork back in early May had included a desire to look at options for relocating the security screening checkpoint – and there was an indication that the council’s building committee would convene a meeting to address that possibility. For some councilmembers, there’s a desire to see better public access to the Justice Center lobby independent of the installation of public art there.

At the council’s July 2, 2012 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had inquired about the status of the building committee’s meeting. She’d been told by city administrator Steve Powers that the security screening was on the committee’s July 16 agenda.

The committee did not deliberate in depth on the different options – partly because the final invoices and costs for the municipal center building project aren’t final, so it’s not clear if money might remain in the project budget to handle alterations of the security screening station. [The municipal center refers to the Justice Center and adjacent city hall.] Any change to the current security configuration would first be recommended to the full city council by its building committee, with necessary expenditures approved by the city council before implementation by the city administrator.

Councilmembers who attended the July 16 committee meeting included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje. Staff included city administrator Steve Powers, facilities service unit manager Matt Kulhanek, chief of police John Seto, and CFO Tom Crawford.

After the jump, this article includes more detail on the different security configuration options and the cost breakdown.

Option 1: Establish a Flexible Configuration

Two options for reconfiguring the security at the Justice Center – 1a and 1b – are driven by the idea of making the lobby easily convertible for use as a public event space. Both options maintain the screening at essentially the same location as now, but would make necessary modifications so that the screening equipment could be more easily removed when desired. [In the diagrams below, the top is east, and Fifth Avenue is at the bottom. The Fifth Avenue doorway is currently used as an emergency exit, and to accept a limited number of deliveries. It's not currently configured for public entry. The public enters through doorways at the top of the diagram, off the Huron Street plaza.]

Option 1a security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. A cost of $30,625 would include conversion to removable glass partitions.

Option 1b for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. A cost of $40,000 would include removal of permanent glass partitions and installation of a security desk.

Option 2: Move Location of Permanent Equipment

The other two options (2a and 2b) entail fundamentally changing the location of the security screening equipment. Both options would entail moving the equipment to the Fifth Avenue side of the lobby, near the elevators. The 2a option would entail moving the security screening so that it would be nestled right in the corner that visitors must turn, in order to get to the elevators. The 2b option does not take advantage of the corner configuration and requires additional glass partitions, which increases the cost.

Option 2a for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. Cost is estimated at $91,250.

Option 2b for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. Cost is estimated at $225,000.

A factor that’a analyzed in the schematic detail and cost breakdown for the various options is the ability of security personnel to have a line of sight to the Fifth Avenue entrance doors. As they’re currently used – as an emergency exit and for occasional deliveries – the line of sight to the doors is not crucial. But in the course of the new discussion on making the building more accessible, the possibility of allowing a public entrance off Fifth Avenue has been considered. And it’s that scenario that drives the line-of-sight issue.

Next Steps

The building committee did not discuss the options in detail on July 16, and concluded their meeting by taking a firsthand look at the Justice Center lobby. City administrator Steve Powers confirmed for The Chronicle that for now, there’s no intention to do anything except maintain the current configuration.

Any change would first be considered and recommended by the building committee to the whole council. Upon approval by the council of any budget changes necessary for changing the security configuration, those changes could then be implemented. Part of the balance councilmembers will weigh in making any decision is between the public’s interest in access to public space and the public’s interest in maintaining adequate security.

The balance between public access and security is an issue that has surfaced in connection with the entire municipal center complex, not just the new Justice Center. The renovated city hall – known as the Larcom Building – is now typically locked overnight. Before the new construction, the police desk was located at the entrance to city hall, and police staff could buzz in visitors to the city hall building – say, for public meetings that took place after regular business hours.

With the police desk now located in the Justice Center, police staff can’t regulate entry to the city hall building. While the new city hall elevators can be programmed to grant access only to specific floors – like the second floor, where the council chambers are located – that’s still proven to be problematic. On at least one occasion, city staff have discovered on arrival at work a member of the public who apparently overnighted in a bathroom.

When the final tally on the municipal center construction project budget is complete, the council will be in a better position to weigh costs and benefits of a security reconfiguration. The preliminary figures presented to the committee at its July 16 meeting showed $46,955,203 in expenditures already made, with another $427,084 in projected expenditures. That’s against a budget of $47,400,000. So if the projected expenditures are on target, that would currently leave only $17,712 in the project budget to undertake the security reconfiguration.

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

Chronicle file photo from September 2010 of the control room adjoining the CTN television studio, located on South Industrial Highway. On the screens are images from a local League of Women Voters city council candidate forum.

The Chronicle subsequently obtained an audio cassette recording of the Feb. 17 meeting made by the city clerk.

In relevant part, we report the contents of that city council cassette tape in a separate article. For this article, we take a view of CTN as an organization that’s broader than a missing DVD. But we still begin with a city council meeting.

In May 2009, former cable communications commissioner Paul Bancel addressed the city council during the time allotted for public commentary. He suggested that when councilmembers looked at the city budget, they’d see a $1.5 million allocation to community television. “It’s up to you to make it relevant,” he said.

Is it relevant? For 38 years, Community Television Network has served Ann Arbor. “There will always be cable providers or video providers,” said CTN manager Ralph Salmeron in a recent Chronicle interview.

But how does CTN fit within that media and communications landscape?

CTN’s Beginnings

In October 1973, Ann Arbor began broadcasting community television. After fighting for the creation of “public access television,” a group of local activists began running one public access channel – Channel 6. It would not be called “community television” until years later. They initially set up shop at 403 S. Fifth Ave., but by 1974 had moved to the Old Union Hall, located at 208 W. Liberty. The operation was known as Ann Arbor Public Access.

In February 1978, five years after public access television began broadcasting, the city of Ann Arbor took over the control of Ann Arbor Public Access. The city’s relationship with public access television, and the monetary support that followed through franchise fees, was not finalized until the start of 1980. By then, the name had been formally changed to the Community Television Network (CTN).

By the time current manager of CTN Ralph Salmeron took that position with the organization in 1989, CTN had expanded to include three channels – one each devoted to public, educational, and municipal programing. CTN continued to receive federal funding and franchise fees.

In reflecting on the network’s initial years, Salmeron observed in conversation with The Chronicle, “The roots of the organization are as a public access center … [A] center that makes training and resources available to citizens of Ann Arbor.”

The necessary connection between public benefit and cable companies’ use of the public resources is reflected in Ann Arbor’s city ordinance on cable communications and franchise fees (Chapter 32 of the city code). From the city code [emphasis added]:

Chapter 32, 2:100
The city council finds that the further development of cable communications may result in great benefits for the people of the city. Cable technology is rapidly changing, and cable plays an essential role as part of the city’s basic infrastructure. Cable television systems permanently occupy and extensively make use of scarce and valuable public rights-of-way, in a manner different from the way in which the general public uses them. The city council finds that public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers vested in the city to protect the public and to ensure that any franchise granted is operated in the public interest.

Part of operating a cable franchise in the public interest means providing “access channels”:

Chapter 32, 2:101
(1) “Access channel” means any channel on a cable system set aside by a grantee for public, educational, or governmental (“PEG”) use.

Of the different purposes for access channels, it’s public use that was CTN’s initial focus. “That’s our legacy,” says Salmeron, “and that’s where initially probably 75% of our resources went.” Now, CTN’s resources are divided across four cable channels:

• Channel 16 – GovTV (government meetings)
• Channel 17 – A2TV (public access)
• Channel 18 – EduTV (educational, informational)
• Channel 19 – CitiTV (original local programming)

The public access channel, A2TV, gets roughly one-quarter of CTN’s resources, Salmeron estimates – there’s a roughly even distribution across the four channels. Compared to the 75% of resources devoted to public access in the early days, it’s clear that CTN’s priorities have evolved in the last 30 years.

The Financial Picture

In reflecting on the value of CTN to Ann Arbor, one way to frame the question is in terms of dollars and cents. How much does Ann Arbor invest in CTN? The short answer this year is about $1.8 million – it’s increased in the two years since Paul Bancel addressed the city council.

Where does that $1.8 million come from? Cable franchise fees constitute CTN’s only significant source of funding. Cable operators (in Ann Arbor, it’s Comcast) pay to the city 5% of their yearly gross revenue from operations within Ann Arbor. And by city ordinance, the franchise fee goes directly into funding the activities for which CTN is responsible.

Chapter 32, 2:111
(7) The franchise fee revenues received by the city shall be directed to the cost of franchise administration, operation of PEG access television, and communications and media operations of the City.

That has more or less insulated CTN from discussion during the city council’s yearly budget talks, even during budget retreats in recent years when councilmembers have been encouraged by city staff to put everything on the table. CTN’s funding will be stable unless cable franchise fees were to be eliminated by the state legislature, or the city ordinance were changed to direct franchise fee revenues in some other way.

The percentage breakdown of the roughly $1.8 million in expenses varies from year to year. But staff compensation, like most city departments, consistently makes up the biggest single category of the CTN budget. Of the $1,843,116 in the current 2012 fiscal year CTN budget, $1,020,426 is for employee compensation. [.pdf of FY 2012 budget book for city administrator service area ] [.pdf of detailed CTN expenses]

The CTN budget funds the city communications manager, half the salary of the city’s communications unit manager, the CTN manager, two CTN assistant managers, three producers, two programmers and two training/facility coordinators for a total of 11.5 positions.

Given the technology- and hardware-based nature of operating a cable television network, equipment costs might be expected to be a large part of the budget. But compared to employee costs, equipment costs for CTN are not nearly as great.

In two out of the last three years, CTN has spent around $100,000 on equipment – in the other year, equipment expenses dipped to around $40,000. But the 2012 budget includes $326,616 for equipment, with almost $200,000 projected for FY 2013. The increase is due to additional capital outlays required to convert equipment to digital format.

The city of Ann Arbor leases space for the CTN offices on South Industrial Highway. It’s a 10-year lease, which began in 2008, with an annual cost of around $100,000.

CTN’s Current Programming

What kind of programming will $1.8 million support?

Part of Ralph Salmeron’s vision of the network is this: “What we try to bring to Ann Arbor is very much a local flavor. If we’re covering a story for our news magazine, it has to have some depiction of the community and some importance to the community.”

The news magazine Salmeron means is For Your Information (FYI), which airs on CitiTV, Channel 19. This past February, CTN aired the 500th edition of the show. A recent edition of FYI included segments on a theatre production in West Park, Ypsilanti’s Heritage Festival, and breastfeeding awareness month. Other Channel 19 programs include Ward Talk (interviews with city council members) and Conversations (interviews by Jim Blow with public figures). Recent programs aired on CTN’s Channel 19 are available online.

In seeking that local flavor on other channels, CTN fulfills two very separate functions.

The first coincides with the network’s history as a public access center. Channel 17, the public access channel, provides a venue for citizens. As Salmeron notes, “[A]ny citizen can step up and comment … [L]iterally, our programs are a soap box to get themselves heard.” One example of that is the CTN-produced Access Soapbox on Channel 17, a program that allows Ann Arbor residents to get in front of a camera and say their piece by expressing an opinion, announcing events, or raising any issues they think should be of concern for other Ann Arbor residents.

An example of a regular program airing on Channel 17 that is not produced by CTN staff is Other Perspectives, a public affairs interview show hosted by Ann Arbor resident Nancy Kaplan.

While it receives just one-quarter of CTN’s resources, a commitment to public access remains an integral part of CTN’s mission. That’s reflected in part by a recent effort to create a kind of online clearinghouse for video material related to Ann Arbor with a CTN Miro Community. In addition to hosting Channel 17′s public access material online, the Miro Community provides a way for Ann Arborites to add videos they’ve already uploaded to other online platforms – like YouTube, Vimeo, Blip.TV or Google Video – to CTN’s clearinghouse. Searches of those platforms for videos described with the term “Ann Arbor” currently return more than 10,000 results.

A second function of CTN’s other channels is described by Salmeron as “providing that window of transparency for government.”

Salmeron notes the growth of CTN’s meeting coverage on Channel 16 – a channel that began by airing only eight or so monthly meetings has grown to cover regularly 15 or 16 monthly meetings, Salmeron says. That works out to upwards of 210-220 live meetings a year, he estimates.

Over the last two years, the boards of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority have begun videotaping their meetings and making the recordings available through CTN’s online video on demand service. Earlier this year, the board of the Ann Arbor District Library considered, but ultimately rejected a proposal to videotape its meetings.

The Future of CTN

What if sometime in the future, a resident wants to review one of those government meetings that was previously broadcast live? And more generally, what is CTN’s future role in Ann Arbor?

The Chronicle followed up with Paul Bancel, who had addressed the city council back in May 2009 challenging the council to make CTN relevant. Bancel is a former member of the cable communications commission.

By way of background, the commission is an advisory board to CTN that Salmeron says “helps us work through policy issues and budgeting.” One of the key recommendations from a study of CTN, undertaken by then-University of Michigan student Matt Hampel, was to eliminate the commission in favor of an information technology advisory board.

Bancel offered two recommendations concerning CTN’s changing role in the future.

His first suggestion is to revise the city’s ordinance on cable franchise fees so that the franchise fee revenue would be directed to the city’s general fund.

Bancel argues that because this would make budgeting for CTN the same as other general fund activities, “the relevancy of CTN will soon become apparent.” Currently, Bancel says, CTN “gets an ‘Advance to Go’ card and collect your $200 at budget time.”

While acknowledging that cable franchise fees could be directed to purposes other than local cable programming, Salmeron argues that CTN’s mission includes fulfilling a community role that is noticeably absent in broadcast stations of major cities such as Detroit.

Another suggestion from Bancel to ensure the relevancy of CTN is to measure the viewership of every program. To guarantee a sense of accountability, Bancel says, “we recommended that CTN monitor and track the quality of the broadcasts.”

CTN has, to some extent, adopted that kind of approach. CTN does not have viewership data for its four broadcast channels, though it is possible to record the statistics for its online video-on-demand service. Here’s a sample of the viewership for May 2011 government meetings online:

 10 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board
  4 Cable Communications Commission
232 City Council
  2 Disabilities Issues
 13 Energy Commission
  2 Environmental Commission
  5 Greenbelt Advisory Commission
  2 Historic District Commission
  9 Human Rights Commission
 11 Park Advisory Commission
  9 Planning Commission
  5 Zoning Board of Appeals

304 MAY 2011 TOTAL VIEWS

-
[Note: Salmeron clarified that CTN is unable to identify the breakdown of IP addresses for each viewing, which means that theoretically the data could be skewed if, for example, one person decided to watch the zoning board of appeals meeting five times. But as Salmeron noted, “[T]hese are municipal meetings, and I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of people (excluding reporters) who watched the same meeting more than once.”]

Bancel also noted in conversation with The Chronicle that during his time on the cable communications commission, CTN did not have specific, measurable goals: “Goals were general, like improve communication with the university.”

In the FY 2012 city of Ann Arbor budget book, the kind of goals and metrics that are now indicated for the city’s communications unit (which includes CTN) are outlined as follows:

Service Unit Goals
A. Increase by 15 percent information distributed to internal and external audiences about Ann Arbor municipal news, innovative programs, awards and services from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
B. Develop and assist in the implementation of new technology resources to engage citizens and employees and enhance understanding of city services and initiatives from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.

Service Unit Measures Status
A. Track the number of information pieces distributed monthly and highlight up to three hot topics via the Communication Office Matrix (information pieces include print/online newsletter, news releases, events, public information meetings, Gov Delivery notifications, CTN programs, social media tools, website page updates/development) by June 30, 2012.
B. Track status of technology resource project implementations each month. These new resources include integration of new media, such as Podcasts and live web streaming of city meetings to promote City information and CTN services, applications to monitor effectiveness of communication messages/vehicles (Google Analytics, GovDelivery subscribers and click throughs, A2C report, Survey Monkey, VOD views) by June 30, 2012.
C1. Track the number of new training participants, clients, and PEG programs (detailed information to include specific training classes, participants, and clients) via the CTN monthly report as a result of new trainer position/programs by June 30, 2012.

The 210-220 yearly government meetings aired live on CTN represent an archiving challenge, even in the digital age. CTN’s current online archiving policies encourages medium, but not long-term, preservation of government meeting material. City council meetings are archived online for two years, and all other meetings are stored for six months.

Salmeron says that a single factor dictates CTN’s online archiving policy: server space. He says, “It will all come down to the amount of space and what we can afford to build.”

CTN buys its server space for online streaming and video on-demand from Leightronix, a company based in Holt, Mich. CTN has two PEG Central accounts, a service offered by Leightronix, that costs $5,677 per year. Each account has 500 hours of storage, so CTN has 1,000 hours total of online storage available. If CTN wanted to increase its storage capacity, it could do so in 500 hour increments by adding additional PEG Central accounts.

CTN is still working on its archiving system. Only in 2009 did CTN start to convert its videotapes to DVD and begin to capture meetings on DVD. When The Chronicle was interested in reviewing the Feb. 17, 2009 Ann Arbor city council meeting, we first noted that the previously available online recording was no longer accessible – it had been a casualty of storage space limits. When we followed up with a request for the corresponding DVD, CTN staff reported that the disk was not in the slot in the binder where it was kept.

Salmeron says of the incident, “What we have determined is that that was a meeting where there were technical difficulties, so there’s no way to retrieve a recording that doesn’t exist.” He is also quick to note, “Our recordings are not the official record for documents. For council or for any of the other commissions or boards, the documented record is the clerk’s notes.”

However, the official written minutes made by the city clerk are “action minutes,” which record the outcome of all votes, but do not depict discussion among councilmembers, even in summary form. And the audio recordings made by the clerk’s office on cassette tape are not freely accessible to the public. No other organization besides CTN systematically makes visual recordings of government meetings. So CTN’s video is in some sense irreplaceable if it goes missing.

When asked where CTN’s online services and archiving policies are headed 10 years from now, Salmeron says, “We have to keep changing with the media that changes …  Unfortunately, we don’t have the type of budget to stay on the cutting edge with the national broadcasters … We’re just trying to keep up with the media as best we can.”

About the writer: Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

It’s also a time that we highlight, with gratitude, our local advertisers, and ask readers to consider subscribing voluntarily to The Chronicle to support our work.

The May meeting of the University of Michigan board of regents was remarkable for a rare display of discord. It’s the only time I can recall that this particular board has publicly voiced disagreement with the administration. It’s the only time I can remember some unscripted debate unfolding among regents on a substantive issue – the issue was a resolution recognizing the right of graduate student research assistants to unionize.

Bezonki, like The Chronicle, is a different kind of beast – he's sometimes surprised by what he reads in the newspaper. This is a preview panel from the upcoming June edition of The Chronicle's comic – a monthly nod to the time-honored tradition of the Sunday funnies. Bezonki is created by local artist Alvey Jones. (Image links to Bezonki archive.)

After the meeting, I happened to be leaving at the same time as UM president Mary Sue Coleman. As we walked down the hall together, I told her that despite the tension and clearly deep disagreement on this issue, I had found it refreshing to see an actual public debate at the meeting. It simply never happens.

Whatever disagreements exist among regents – or between regents and the administration – seem to be aired privately. When tuition rates are set, some regents will read statements of polite disagreement, before casting their votes of dissent. But most action items are approved unanimously, with little if any comment. I told Coleman that I realized the meeting had been at times uncomfortable, but that I appreciated the debate.

She gave me a withering look. “I’m sure you do,” she said, crisply.

Her pointed disdain took me aback – though I should have seen it coming. From her perspective, she’d been delivered a very public defeat on an issue she is passionate about, grounded in her personal experience. She seemed weary. But her comment also revealed a view of the media that’s more prevalent and more justified than I like to admit. It’s a view of reporters as hungering for headline-grabbing, website-traffic-sucking stories – and if the facts don’t quite deliver the juice, well, there are ways to spice up reality. There’s a reason why news gathering is sometimes called “feeding the beast.”

From that perspective, Coleman perhaps heard my remarks as the comments of someone who was hungry for more drama of regents mixing it up in front of the plebeians. Ouch.

So on my drive home from UM’s Dearborn campus – where the regents meeting was held – I thought about why the exchange had touched a nerve for me. For one, I’m dismayed that elected officials and other civic leaders are so often reluctant to hold difficult discussions in public. The board of regents is not the only body that does its business like a tightly choreographed kabuki dance. But as a journalist, I’m angered when irresponsible actions by those who earn a livelihood as part of the news media give public bodies a cheap excuse to be even more closed-off.

Keeping Deliberations in Public View: Why It Matters

Any reader who  follows The Chronicle’s editorial stance – reflected in our approach to regular coverage, our columns and these monthly milestones – is likely aware that we’re relentless in pushing for openness and transparency in local government. Frankly, it often feels like a Sisyphean task. There are many more forces pressing on public officials to conduct business out of public view than there are motivations for holding all deliberations in public. That’s nothing new. You can make arguments of efficiency, or politesse, or politics – and yes, deliberating in public can be messy.

To which I say: Too damn bad.

That’s why laws like the Michigan Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act are in place – it’s a recognition that legal constraints are sometimes the only thing powerful enough to prompt the type of behavior that citizens of a democracy require of their government.

Openness is also a matter of degree. I was disappointed when Ann Arbor District Library board members recently rejected a proposal to begin videotaping their monthly meetings for broadcast. At their May meeting, the newest AADL board member, Nancy Kaplan, brought forward a resolution to videotape meetings. But it was defeated on a 2-4 vote, with support only from Kaplan and Barbara Murphy. (Trustee Ed Surovell was absent.) It was also disappointing that no trustees spoke publicly during the meeting about their reasons for voting against it.

Those kinds of discussions – explaining the rationale for a particular vote – should happen at the board table.

As an aside, I should point out that, unlike most traditional media outlets, it’s not The Chronicle’s typical practice after a meeting to “get a quote” from public officials on which to base our meeting reports, though we will seek clarification, if necessary. Our rationale is based on the belief that the media shouldn’t need to act as an intermediary – if someone from the rank-and-file public takes the time to attend a meeting or watch it online or on cable television, that interested citizen should have access to the same information that a journalist does.

In the same way, we don’t believe the media should encourage public officials to make statements to reporters privately instead of at a public venue – where those statements can be on the record for everyone – and challenged publicly by their colleagues if they disagree. Obviously, this does not eliminate the role of investigative reporting or basic source development.

But too often, there’s an unhealthy symbiotic relationship between a reporter and a public official as an exclusive source. Readers and viewers often attach undue credibility to journalists who seem to have privileged access to key officials, so it’s in a journalist’s interest to maintain that access. The price for that access is that journalists allow quotes from those officials to frame the public narrative. Sometimes that price is paid unwittingly, simply because an inexperienced journalist lacks enough understanding, history or context for the subject matter.

But back to the library board. I was disappointed by the board’s decision not to make their meetings more accessible – both for anyone who’s interested now, but also for archival purposes. The archival angle is one that I’d think would be especially compelling to a group responsible for the stewardship of the local public library. If no audio or visual record of the meeting is made and preserved, then for someone who is not able to attend in person, the only way to experience the content of the board deliberations is through a reliance on reports from the media, or the official meeting minutes that are available a month or two later.

The argument that it’s a matter of resources doesn’t carry much weight with me – it’s actually a matter of will and priorities. And it seems clear that for AADL library trustees and for the UM regents (whose meetings are also not videotaped for subsequent public access), most members don’t believe a greater degree of public access is important.

And in fact, there’s often not much to witness at these meetings, in terms of deliberations on action items – perhaps an occasional question, though rarely one that’s very pointed or critical. For the regents in particular, who oversee the university’s massive budget and set policy with far-reaching implications, it’s remarkable how little can be gleaned from public meetings about the rationale for their decisions – even if you’re paying close attention.

So I suppose that one argument against spending any resources on videotaping these meetings is simply that there’s not much worth recording for posterity, other than the outcome of votes. And that, I think, is a more fundamental issue.

Public Deliberations: The Media’s Responsibility

While I would certainly put the onus of public deliberations in the hands of elected and appointed officials, the media has some responsibility here, too. That responsibility is to report based on a solid understanding of the subject matter.

That responsibility lies in developing a deep understanding of what’s being discussed around the board or council table, and in providing accurate context and background information so that readers can make sense of it. What prevails, though – in much of the national, regional and local news coverage I see – is parachute-style journalism. A reporter drops in on a public meeting, plucks out the most controversial aspect of the interaction, and trumpets that controversy as if that public body accomplished nothing else at their meeting.

That’s partly an artifact of the basic approach to news as “churnalism,” which puts a premium on speed, brevity and frequency. It’s more of a reporting-as-discussion-prompt approach. Alternately, it’s reporting as a delivery device for a poll. With provocative headlines and scant facts, readers are left to fill in the blanks with comments and speculation. And it’s always easier for someone to have an opinion, if a publication serves up issues as if all a reader needs to know is Choice A or Choice B. All of that drives website traffic, which brings in more ad revenue – if you’re selling ads based on page views and click-throughs. Chronicle ads aren’t sold on that basis.

Believe me, I’ve got nothing against ad revenue – bless the local businesses and organizations that support The Chronicle’s work. And bless the generous individual voluntary subscribers to our publication. But I believe the mission of a news publication should be driven something different from a desire to generate cheap page views.

Against a backdrop of marginally informed, eager-to-hype reporting, it’s no wonder that people in the public eye – even those who might otherwise have no problem with scrutiny – pull back from putting their business on the table. And for those who aren’t inclined to do their work in public in the first place, they’re provided with an easy excuse.

This results in a “governing class” in our community, where the path to making decisions isn’t clear unless you’re member of that class or in the network of someone who is. And those who actually follow public boards closely still have only a partial understanding of decision-making – because it often doesn’t happen where it should: In a public venue.

So while I think I understand Mary Sue Coleman’s reflexive reaction to my comments, I’ll still advocate for more of that kind of candid discussion between her and the regents.

At The Chronicle, we’re committed to proving there’s another way to approach the business of reporting – one that assumes readers can be intelligent, with a sufficient attention span to digest more than a sound bite. It’s an approach that treats the work of individuals and institutions we cover as worthy of our sustained attention – for longer than just the time it takes to collect a few quotes and pound out a few paragraphs.

I believe it’s possible to breed something other than a media beast. That’s why, against some daunting odds, we’re working hard to make The Ann Arbor Chronicle a different kind of creature.

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

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded organizations and local government. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Doodle by city council meeting audience member showing comparison of Project Grow versus police discussion. "Time spent on Project Grow – $7,000; On cops – $6.8 million."

Ann Arbor City Council Meeting (May 18, 2009): Ann Arbor’s city council approved the budget for fiscal year 2010 at its Monday meeting, spending little time discussing a separate resolution key to that budget, which approved an early-retirement inducement for police officers involving a one-time payment of around $6 million – depending on how many officers take advantage of the incentive.

The fact of the lengthy discussion over much smaller items was acknowledged around the council table, with councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) making a note of it when she made an unsuccessful bid to eliminate or delay the introduction of parking meters into near-downtown residential neighborhoods. Smith was comparing the relatively short discussion of parking meters (involving potential additional revenues of $380,000) to the previous deliberations on Project Grow’s funding. And in the course of the more than 45-minute deliberations on Project Grow’s $7,000 grant, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted: “The least expensive ones are the ones we fight the hardest over.” Briere lost her fight for the community gardening nonprofit.

The approved budget did include amendments to allocate funds for the Leslie Science and Nature Center. Also related to the budget, the two resolutions to approve fee adjustments for the community services and public services areas were approved with no deliberations by council, leaving the issues raised at the previous night’s caucus by the chair of the market commission undiscussed publicly.

In other budget business, city council passed a resolution to create a taskforce to study options for the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which is slated for closure under the FY 2011 budget plan (i.e., not the budget approved by council at this meeting).

Council also approved an extension to the purchase-option agreement with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel, gave final approval to a completely new liquor ordinance, approved increased water/sewer rates, approved grant applications for multiple properties under the greenbelt program, and asked planning commission to review the C3 zoning regulations regarding the kind of temporary outdoor sales conducted in previous years at the Westgate farmers market.

The funding of the north-south connector study was again postponed, pending coordination with the Downtown Development Authority.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) is not testing the air currents in city hall chambers. He's explaining why he thinks the early retirement option for police makes good budget sense.

Police Early Retirement Inducement

Background: The police department reduction proposed in the FY 2010 budget would take away a total of 27 full-time employees, with 16 of those (6 command and 10 patrol) sworn officer positions.

As a strategy to avoid laying off personnel, on Monday night city council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s general retirement policy that provides an inducement for police department employees to retire early.

A summary of the general retirement policy, as contrasted with the revision made for police officers, is provided in the actuarial evaluation of the proposed change that was made by the city’s consultant, Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company:

PRESENT PROVISIONS: General members are eligible for regular retirement (unreduced pension) at age 50 with 25 years of service, or age 60 with 5 years of service. Police members are eligible for regular retirement (unreduced pension) at 25 years of service, or age 55 with 5 years of service. General and Police members are eligible for early retirement (reduced pension) at age 50 with 20 years of service.

PROPOSED PROVISIONS:  … Members in COAM or AAPOA meeting the age requirement (if any) and within two years of meeting the service retirement conditions (unreduced or reduced) by June 30, 2009 are granted 2 additional years of benefit and eligibility service if they retire on or before June 30, 2009.

In addition to granting two years of service to members of the Command Officers Association of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, the early-out program authorized by city council allows members of those unions to purchase up to one year of service. The GRS&C summary of the police department’s personnel, based on information provided by the city, is as follows:

Number of active members: 149
Total payroll:            $11,448,056
Average age:              41.3 years
Average service:          14.7 years
Average annual pay:       $76,833
Eligible active members:  32 (+2 covered by AAPOA outside police department)
Payroll of eligibles:     $2,689,706

-

The analysis of the maximum cost, if all eligible members were to take advantage of the offer, is as follows: $3.5 million (pension), $1.6 million (voluntary employment benefit association – VEBA), $1.6 million (leave payouts), for a total of  $6.7 million. That amount would be taken from the city’s reserve fund, which is projected at $15.2 million at FY 2009 – or 18% of expenditures.

That amount  excludes the settlement of the Pfizer tax appeal, which reflects a potential liability of $0.9 million, as well as the Act 312 additional arbitration costs of $0.6 million that council authorized at its May 4, 2009 meeting. If all that actual cost, plus all the potential costs, are calculated in, reserves could be reduced to $7.6 million (9% of expenditures).

Projected operating cost savings, based on planned reductions of 18 FTEs excluding vacancies: FY 2010, $1.6 million;  FY 2011, $1.9 million; FY 2012, $1.9 million; FY 2013, $2.0 million.

Budget Questions Raised During Public Commentary: Two speakers during the public hearing on the revision to the city’s employees’ retirement system raised questions about the financial wisdom of the incentive program. Karen Sidney pointed out that for around $600,000 the civic band, Project Grow, the historic district consultant, plus gaps in human services funding could be covered, leaving around $6 million (from the maximum cost of the early-retirement program) that could be spent in part to pay police officers to do police work for two years, after which time they could retire at no extra cost to the city.

John Floyd echoed the same sentiment, saying that one option would be not to spend the cash from the city’s reserve upfront, and wait to see what ordinary attrition brought over the next two years – then use cash for an early retirement program if necessary. Floyd reasoned that if early retirement buyouts were necessary at that point, then it would be less costly in cash terms than now, because less incentive [in terms of years of service credit] would be required to induce officers to retire. Floyd concluded his brief remarks with a request: “I’d like to see the analysis.”

Deliberations: In terms of the analysis that Floyd requested, during deliberations Leigh Greden (Ward 3), who serves on council’s budget and labor committee [along with Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and John Hieftje (mayor)], offered the observation that with an attrition-based approach, there was no guarantee that anyone would retire. Officers needed some incentive to retire, Greden said.

In his other remarks on the issue, Greden rejected the notion that money should be taken from cash reserves to pay for operating expenses [like Project Grow or the historic district consultant], saying that a government using such a strategy would wind up bankrupt. He also stressed the fact that the general retirement program in place for the city was sound – it saves the city around $10 million a year, he said.  What made the enhancement being offered to police officers even better, Greden said, was the fact that it targeted middle management positions, while leaving patrol strength unchanged.

After Hieftje had brought police chief Barnett Jones to the podium to recount some of the history of crime rates and policing in Ann Arbor, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) took the opportunity to clarify with Jones how the elimination of the downtown beat  [which currently consists of six officers, who walk or bicycle the downtown area on a two-at-a-time basis] would affect the ability of Ann Arbor’s police force to address the “broken window theory” in downtown. Otherwise put: How would the elimination of foot and bicycle beat cops downtown affect the AAPD’s ability to keep downtown from getting out of hand?

Taylor’s clarification could be seen as an attempt to address the concerns of Newcombe Clark, president of the board of the Main Street Area Association and downtown resident, who had spoken during public comment on the issue. Clark reported that even with an assigned downtown police beat, when bars let out around 2:30 a.m., downtown Ann Arbor was something akin to Beyond Thunderdome.

In response to Taylor’s query on the matter, Jones explained that the total number of uniforms downtown would actually increase.  Officers are required to spend one hour every day outside of their cars – partly to conserve fuel, Jones said. And during these out-of-car breaks, they’d be walking around downtown. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified that by “break” Jones didn’t mean sitting in a cafe eating lunch. Jones also clarified for Smith that the new way of organizing the policing of downtown was not a break from the notion of “community policing.”

Although the subject didn’t receive much attention during the council meeting, at the previous week’s budget work session Jones had explained that part of the out-of-car time would be used to write parking tickets. That would compensate for the reduction in community standards officers, who are specfically dedicated to ticket writing.

On the subject of ticket writing, during public commentary general time, Jim Williams of the Local 369 AFSCME union objected to the possible transfer of job activity [here, ticket writing] from one bargaining unit to another.

After hearing Jones’ explanation of the reorganization of policing in downtown, Taylor offered Jones a cheerful: “Go get’em!”

Budget Amendments

The main event of the evening – deliberations on the city’s FY 2010 budget – left little unchanged from city administrator Roger Fraser’s proposed budget. What did change in the budget centered mostly around the Leslie Science and Nature Center. [electronic packet of amendments]

Leslie Science and Nature Center: Amendments #1 and #2 dealt with reallocating money to the nature center – which could have been expected, based on the budget work session.

At that session, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had queried Jayne Miller, director of community services, about the implications of eliminating the historic district consultant for the city one year earlier than originally planned. Taylor clarified, as he did at the budget work session, that the consultancy in question was not the city staff position currently held by planner Jill Thatcher, who has expertise in historic conservation.

Amendment #1, which was passed unanimously, reallocated the $24,000 alloted to the historic district consultant (whose job was described at the budget work session as largely completed) to fund the Leslie Science and Nature Center. That left the center short of the $28,350 council wanted to allocate to it based on the previous agreement that had been struck with the center in spinning it off from the city to become an independent entity.

Amendment #2, which was also passed unanimously, allocated the remaining $4,350 from the general fund reserves – something that violated a basic principle set forth by Leigh Greden (Ward 3). That principle was that any additional costs needed to be balanced by an alternate revenue source. In the case of Leslie, Greden introduced five points that convinced him the violation of the basic principle was worth it:

1. It’s not a great deal of money.
2. There’s an agreement with Leslie establishing an expectation.
3. The $28,350 is a 10% reduction from 2009 levels.
4. The agreement with Leslie is designed to transition the center to independence.
5. The center needs the money.

LDFA: Amendments #4, #5, and #6 dealt with the Local Development Finance Authority. They were all sponsored by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). It was left to Higgins to provide the explanations. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) explained the absence of his Ward 2 cohort by reporting that Rapundalo was attending the Bio International Convention. In broad strokes, he’s there in his capacity as president of MichBio to represent Michigan as a fertile place for biotech companies to locate and grow. Otherwise put, he’s engaged in economic development activity outside the area that is meant to benefit from that activity.

It’s precisely this geographic distinction that’s addressed by Amendment #6.  The basic idea is that it’s meant to enforce the idea of not spending money that benefits areas outside the geographic area of tax capture of the LDFA. The resolved clause reads:

Resolved, The SmartZone LDFA expenditure budget for Marketing be limited to funding [emphasis added] activities within the geographic boundaries of the Ann Arbor portion of the LDFA, specifically promoting the Business Accelerator.

The language of the amendment caught the attention of Christopher Taylor. He asked if  a billboard outside the district promoting an activity inside the district would count. Based on Higgins’ responses, it seemed to Taylor that the intent was that such a billboard would be okay. That being the case, Taylor suggested the resolution in its current form didn’t reflect that intent – the substitution of the word “promoting” for “funding” would capture the intent, he said.

Though the discussion seemed at that point on the verge of resolution, it foundered on the question of whether the resolution was necessary at all, because it was already reflected in either the founding documents of LDFA or else the contract between the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA. Skip Simms of SPARK and Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO (who sits on the LDFA board in an ex officio capacity) offered explanations involving a desire to improve clarity, something that Hieftje suggested had not been achieved by the resolution – because council itself had not been able to understand what the resolution meant. Higgins withdrew the amendment, but will perhaps bring it back as a standalone resolution in the coming weeks.

The other LDFA-related amendments could also come before council in another few weeks, in order to restore the elements of the LDFA budget that they eliminated. Amendment #4 eliminated $25,000 worth of funding for the angel investment group. Higgins reported that assistant city attorney Mary Fales had verified the legality of such support, but Higgins wanted to remove it for now and bring it back in four weeks or so. That amendment passed.

Amendment #4 could also be back before council in a few weeks to have $50,000 worth of funding restored for an LDFA staff position – the amendment cut the proposed new position. Because the position listed in the budget did not yet have a job description, for now council agreed it should come out of the budget. The initial rationale offered was that there was “incomplete justification for the position.” Taylor initially said he was uncomfortable voting for it, saying that the description “‘incomplete justification’ is itself incomplete.” It was Hohnke who brought out the fact that there was as yet no job description. It was enough to bring Taylor on board.

The saved money, perhaps temporarily so, will go to the LDFA reserve fund, which is separate from the city’s budget.

Related to the LDFA budget amendments – via its contractor, SPARK – was Amendment #8, which allocated an additional $25,000 from the prior year’s economic development fund balance [created in order to pay for Google's parking spaces] to provide SPARK with discretionary funding to promote  economic development in the Ann Arbor area. That passed unanimously.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) raises his hand to ask for the floor to say his piece on Project Grow. Hohnke did not vote for the organization's funding, expressing a broader vision for larger-scale community gardening.

Project Grow: The discussion was thorough on Amendment #7, to allocate $7,000 from the general fund park operations budget for contracted services to Project Grow instead. In the end it did not win approval. Its sponsor, Sabra Briere, fought hard for it, citing a citizen survey of her constituents that showed strong support for the program, even among respondents who did not garden with the nonprofit.  Hohnke had a larger vision in mind that involved the city providing infrastructure elements, but not cash. Greden didn’t want to accept the “ruffles” around the edges of the parks that Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, described as possible when the contracted services budget for light trimming was reduced.

After first indicating his opposition to funding Project Grow, Taylor voted for it. In opposition, he had cited his understanding that Project Grow had applied for and been rejected in the human services funding competition. Briere clarified that Project Grow had not applied as a part of that set of allocations. But Taylor’s vote was not enough.

Parking Meters: There was a late amendment brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), which required a brief recess in order to formulate, to forestall the implementation of the city’s plan to introduce parking meters into residential areas in the near downtown area. Confusion prevailed for much of the discussion. Smith herself apologized for what she described as the “circus-like” manner in which the resolution was introduced.

Part of the plan at one point seemed to be for the Downtown Development Authority to guarantee any lost revenues by a possible delay in deploying the city’s meters. Higgins expressed concern: While Smith does serve on the DDA board, she’s not in a position to speak for DDA funds, and the council should not commit to a proposal if the DDA has not voted on the issue. [Editorial Aside: That will strike members of the DDA board as ironic, given the assumption of an extra $2 million in the city's FY 2011 budget plan paid by the DDA – which the DDA has not voted on. And yes, on the council side, the quick reply will be that it's just the budget plan, that's why we just call it the budget plan, not the budget, and there's time to sort it all out before FY 2011 decision time.]

Mike Bergren, with field operations at the city, assured council that there would be kiosks (instead of meters) deployed as appopriate to the DDA’s rollout of their kiosks.

Project Already Paid For: The first amendment proposed was actually Amendment #3 in the packet, and it was, as its sponsor, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) put it, “an easy one.” It involved eliminating $85,000 from the general fund community services area administration budget for FY 2010, because the project for which the money had been allocated had already been paid for out of FY 2009′s budget – through a resolution that very same evening.  That project was a capital and operating needs assessment for the housing commission.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 1, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]