Ruth Kraut

One thing that has come up in discussions at some schools is the possibility of school closings. This is a natural outgrowth of the fact that in the AAPS district, the prospect of school closings was raised explicitly by the school board in the spring, and by the fact that the Ann Arbor schools have been under financial pressure for several years. (As has every school district in Michigan. You can visit Michigan Parents for Schools to find out more about why that is.)

In fact, in the spring of 2013 the district issued requests for proposals for consultants to help on redistricting. Eventually, they began discussions with the University of Michigan to help the district decide what schools, if any, should be closed. Since nothing has been fully negotiated, I can’t say whether the University of Michigan’s proposal is a good plan or not. They may have a role to play. But I can say this: parents and community members have “skin in the game” when it comes to discussing redistricting schools, and I believe there is an effective way to make these decisions.

As it happens, shortly before I moved to town in 1985, Ann Arbor went through a redistricting process. It was thoughtful, involved a broad sector of the community, and resulted in significant realignments and school closings – with long-lasting benefits. It’s worth taking a look at what happened then. If redistricting is in Ann Arbor’s future, this process may be worth copying and updating.

The Committee on Excellence of Education

There were 20 members of the Committee on Excellence of Education – including many who are still active in the community today: Mary Austin, Ronald Bishop, Vincent Carillot, Patricia Chapman, Susan Doud, Cheryl Garnett, Leonard Gay, George Goodman, Charles Kieffer, Norma McCuiston, R. Griffith McDonald, Bettye McDonald, Melinda Morris, Merrill Nemiroff, Duane Renken, Ingrid Sheldon, Joann Sims, Estelle Titiev, James Wanty, and Ronald Woods.

This was the their charge [emphasis added]:

The Committee on Excellence of Education in the Ann Arbor Public Schools was created by the Board of Education to address several long and short-term issues facing the system during the 1980′s and beyond. The explicit charge to the Committee from the Board of Education was:

1. Do sufficient futuring to provide guidance to timely decisions concerning: a. a long range plan (August, 1985); b. a five-year financial plan; c. school grade reorganization

2. Recommend what quality education should look like in Ann Arbor in 1990 and beyond.

3. Address the issues associated with and make recommendations regarding: a. boundary changes; b. declining enrollment (numbers and implications); c. grade reorganizations; d. building usage; e. school closings; f. definition of what an ideal elementary, intermediate and high school should look like in terms of physical space, number of students, and curriculum; g. desegregation; h. minority/majority performance gap; i. special programs and services; j. school hours; and k. current goals and policies

4. Develop a process to fulfill the charge to the committee, such process to include formal solicitation of input from every employee group, PTO and other interested parties. Twenty-one citizens were appointed by the Trustees of the Board of Education to serve on the Committee. Three alternates were also selected in the event that vacancies should occur.

Just like today, at the time the Ann Arbor school district was trying to solve multiple problems: financial problems and declining enrollment; racial issues (segregation and achievement gap); balancing the needs of special programs; and creating consistent school hours, goals and policies. Part of the committee’s charge involved “formal solicitation of input” from all interested parties.

Let’s look at what the school district did right in 1985.

The school board appointed a group of citizens, plus alternates, and that tells you they really expected people to be committed to the committee. And the citizens were! The committee had subcommittees that sifted through data and met with the community. The district also funded a consultant to provide technical support in developing three redistricting plans based on data and guidelines that the committee provided. The public expressed concern about the input they were having (or weren’t having) as the decision was being made, and ultimately the committee put forward its own plan, not the consultant’s. That plan was then vetted by the public, and several changes to it were made.

I moved to town shortly after all of the work was done, but the decisions were still being discussed and implemented. That is not surprising, because desegregation/equity issues and school closings were a very large part of the discussion.

The redistricting decisions were essentially based on two primary issues: (1) improving racial balance; and (2) reducing the “underutilization” of schools. Although some of the school buildings were sold, the financial implications of that decision were not primary. Today, though, that might be an important consideration.

Updated Issues

If we were to modernize/adapt these almost-30-year-old guidelines, what issues would surface?

Updated Issues: Desegregation

In 1984-1985, the district was 17% African American, and that population was distributed unevenly throughout the district, with 19 out of 26 elementary schools having a building population that was either less than 12% or more than 27% African American. The Asian population was highly concentrated near the University of Michigan’s north campus. White students were a much greater percentage of the school population than today.

The committee wanted to address the problem of segregation. Past attempts had ended in failure. For instance, in 1979 the school board agreed on a desegregation plan, and shortly after found themselves ousted in an election. The committee decided that all schools should have an African American population of between 12% to 27%, and they tried to distribute the Asian population among several schools so as not to create a “third world ghetto.”

Today, the district is less segregated, but there is still wide variation. During the 2011-2012 school year, the district was 14.3% African American, 14.8% Asian, 9% multi-racial, 6.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 55.4% white. So now, there are more Asian students than African American students, many more students who identify as multi-racial, and many fewer white students compared to 1984.

Today, we are looking at different definitions of diversity. Yet just as was true then, racial/ethnic populations in the district are not evenly distributed. [.xls file with detailed AAPS student demographics for 2012-13 school year.]

Here’s a general look at some of the current racial/ethnic distributions, compared to the district average:

• Schools with approximately double or more the Asian population include: Angell, King, Logan, Thurston, Lawton, and Clague. Schools with proportionately half as many Asian students (or fewer!) include Abbot, Community, Eberwhite, and Ann Arbor Open.
• Schools with approximately double or more the Hispanic/Latino population include: Bryant, Lakewood, Mitchell, Pittsfield, and Scarlett. Schools with a very small Hispanic/Latino population include King, Lawton, and Clague.
• Schools with approximately double or more the African American population include: Bryant, Northside, and Scarlett, as well as Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente. Schools where less than 10% of the student body is African American include Bach, Eberwhite, Lakewood, King, Wines, Ann Arbor Open, and Community.
• Schools where over two-thirds of the school population is white include: Bach, Burns Park, Eberwhite, Wines, Ann Arbor Open, and Community. Schools where fewer than 40% of the students are white include: Mitchell, Northside, Scarlett, Ann Arbor Tech, and Roberto Clemente.

In addition, a much higher proportion of the African American population is low-income, compared to other racial and ethnic groups, and so schools that are more than 20% African American generally match the Title 1 schools. (Title 1 schools are schools that get additional federal funding because they have a high proportion of low-income students.) Schools that are more than 20% Asian are heavily concentrated on the north side of town.

Other schools have a higher-than-average percentage of students with special education designations. Most notable are Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente, at 29% and 42% of the student body, respectively. And while nearly a quarter of Mitchell’s students qualify as English Language Learners, there are several schools where almost no one does.

District-wide, 25% of the students qualify for the free and reduced price lunch program. Yet at Mitchell, Pittsfield, Scarlett, Ann Arbor Tech, and Roberto Clemente, over half of the students qualify for free and reduced price lunch. At King and Wines, less than 10% of the students qualify.

Updated Issues: Underutilization of Schools

In 1984, there were 13,772 students in Ann Arbor public schools; today there are over 16,500. There were 26 elementary schools in 1984, and some of them were small. The committee decided that a goal of “two classrooms per grade” was reasonable. For a K-5 school, two classrooms per grade would mean a school building with a little more than 300 students in it. (The committee also recommended reconfiguring the grade levels – at the time, the elementary schools were K-6.) If a grade 6-8 school were to have eight classrooms per grade, the school would have between 600 and 650 students in it.

If we had the same goals today, we would be looking at the following elementary schools with significantly fewer than 300 students: Mitchell, Northside and Pittsfield. (Angell has consistently been just under 300.) It’s also worth noting that Mitchell, Northside, and Pittsfield have been losing students since at least the late 1990s. Northside’s population count is now down to 189, and the school has lost more than two classrooms’ worth of students since 2010! (I’m not going to speculate on why, but obviously that is worth investigating.)

Similarly, Scarlett Middle School’s population has declined by over 100 students in the last 15 years, and is now under 500 students – while every other middle school in the district has seen increases. Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente have both seen shrinkage, while Ann Arbor Open and Community High have both seen increases.

In 1985, the elementary schools averaged 260 students; a year later, after the redistricting took place, they averaged 380 students. Since 2005, the elementary schools have had average head counts in the 330s. If we were to aim for elementary schools with an average of 370 students, we’d probably close three elementary schools, and perhaps close a middle school or turn it into a K-8 school.

Map showing the location of current AAPS schools: elementary (red), middle (green) and high schools (blue). The orange icons are administrative buildings. (Image links to interactive Google map – click on a school icon for more information about that location.)

Updated Issues: Magnet and Specialty Programs

In 1985, the committee recommended combining the various open classrooms around the district into an Open School, then housed at Bach. So too, a new look at redistricting could imagine some other types of magnets. Ideas that I’ve heard mentioned include another K-8 school on the east side of the school district; another Open-type school; a K-5 or K-8 language immersion program (Spanish, Mandarin, and/or Arabic); a STEM (science and technology) K-5 or K-8 program; a Montessori school; and a school, or two, with an arts/theater/music focus.

I’m sure I’m missing a few of the ideas that are out there! Obviously, redistricting offers opportunities to create other magnet or specialty programs.

Updated Issues: School Closings

In the 1980s, the district closed six schools, selling or leasing several of the buildings. One school building – Lakewood Elementary, on the city’s far west side – was reserved by the district and eventually reopened. But Clinton School’s building was sold to the Jewish Community Center, which also houses the Hebrew Day School; the former Bader School building now houses a preschool/early elementary center; Freeman School’s building was leased to Go Like the Wind Christian Montessori School; and the building for Newport School now belongs to the Rudolph Steiner School.

And those private schools have grown, at least in part because they were able to move into nice buildings.

As I wrote in the blog post, “Unintended Consequences” [1]:

So, for instance, the Rudolph Steiner School started in 1980 with a handful of students, and grew slowly until 1986, when it was able to occupy Newport School. By 1999, the Steiner School had 298 students – the vast majority in their K-8 lower school (313 students K-12, 2009).

In 1985, the Hebrew Day School was in very inadequate space, and had under 50 students. By 1999, the Hebrew Day School had over 100 students (87 students K-5, 2009).

Go Like the Wind Christian Montessori school, which only opened in 1987, had over 100 students by 1999 (101 students K-8, 2009).

And Ann Arbor Hills Child Development Center goes through age 8, with a K-2 primary school program that in 1999 had 35 students (33 students K-2, 2009).

As we look to the future, I would hope that we consider how to reduce the competition that AAPS faces from private or charter schools. From that point of view, ideal school buildings to consider for sale are buildings that will have resale value to organizations that are not private or charter schools. In that sense, a neighborhood school building like Pittsfield or Mitchell – under-enrolled though they may be – is much less attractive to sell than a building like Angell, Bach, or Community, all of which are downtown or near downtown. Also more desirable to sell would be the building for A2 Tech (formerly Stone School), which is near Packard, a major thoroughfare. Not only would the district probably get less money for a Pittsfield over a Bach, but a Pittsfield would be much more likely to be turned into another – and competing – school.

Other things that are worth putting on the metaphorical table:

• Geographic distribution. In the 1985 plan, the committee recommended closing Forsythe Middle School as they felt it was too close to Slauson. That didn’t happen because the public didn’t like it. Today, Scarlett is the most underenrolled middle school, but closing Scarlett would leave no middle school in the southeast quadrant of the district.
• Transportation and walkability. Burns Park, Mitchell and Tappan are examples of schools that draw a lot of walkers, and that’s a good thing – although it may sometimes conflict with concerns about racial balance. Transportation and walkability are huge issues for parents, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

Two other issues are the expected growth and movement of student populations, and of course the next moves of the state legislature.

The Doover: Looking Ahead, Looking Behind

As you can see, there’s a lot to think about. Change can be hard. Even mini-reorganizations – such as the restructurings that occurred when Lakewood Elementary reopened, when Skyline High opened, and when Ann Arbor Open moved to Mack and the Mack school catchment area students moved to Bach – were vociferously debated. But as a parent whose children experienced two of those changes, I feel comfortable saying that it didn’t end up being all that big of a deal.

Some homework with the “Doover” stamp. (Photo by Ko Shih.)

As I look back at the process the school district used in 1985, I’m proud of it. I think it’s an excellent model, and it’s one reason that the reorganization was successful for as long as it was.

Yet the committee didn’t do all of this alone. Not only did the administration provide key support, the feedback loop from the broader community was quite strong. In fact, quite a few of the initial committee recommendations never came to pass, because of community feedback. (Also, the committee made a lot of recommendations that were not related directly to redistricting, but rather were related to the other committee goals.)

At Ann Arbor Open, in fifth and sixth grade, my younger two children had teachers Rick Hall and Ko Shih. Rick and Ko don’t generally tolerate messy or sub-par work. Turning that in earns students the special “Doover” stamp. (Get it? Do Over.)

In this case, I want to turn the Doover on its head. I want us to Doover the redistricting process using the same method that was used in 1985. I want a Doover, not because the work was so bad, but because the work was so good.

Notes

[1] “Unintended Consequences” was the last in a series of posts that I wrote on the 1985 reorganization. The others, in sequence, are: “But Was It Worth It?“; “A Little History“; “Desegregation Outcomes“; and “Privatization History.”

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The decision came after the state Bureau of Elections indicated late Friday afternoon that a determination made by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum earlier in the week was inappropriate. Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle on Saturday that Borregard had been apprised of the situation, and will be officially informed in writing on Monday, when his name will be removed from the list of candidates on the county’s election website.

Republican Dan Smith, shown here chairing the May 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board's ways & means committee, represents District 2 on the board of commissioners. He will be the only candidate on the ballot in District 2 for the Aug. 7 primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Borregard, a Dexter resident, had originally filed to run in District 1, which is the current district in which he resides. However, because of redistricting that takes effect for the upcoming election, his home will be located in the new District 2. Shortly after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, the county clerk’s office was alerted to this error by Kent Martinez-Kratz, a Democrat who’s running in District 1 against incumbent Republican Rob Turner. Acting to correct what he deemed a clerical error, Kestenbaum, a Democrat, approved an amendment to Borregard’s paperwork to allow him to appear on the District 2 ballot.

On Friday afternoon at 2 p.m., Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that he had talked with the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger] earlier in the week, as well as to staff in the state Bureau of Elections, and that he was comfortable that the change was within his authority to make. He said it was important not to create barriers to running for office. “There’s no trickery here,” he said.

Later that afternoon, Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams told The Chronicle that staff were reviewing the situation and would potentially weigh on in it early next week. The Bureau of Elections is a division of the office of Secretary of State, a position held by Republican Ruth Johnson.

But just a few minutes before 5 p.m. on Friday, an official from the Bureau of Elections contacted the county clerk’s office, according to Golembiewski. The state’s view is that it was not appropriate to accept changes to the filing after the 4 p.m. deadline. As a result, Borregard’s name will not appear on the ballot. Kestenbaum left town Friday afternoon to attend an out-of-state funeral over the weekend and could not be reached. Golembiewski said that Kestenbaum had previously indicated he would abide by the state Bureau of Elections decision.

Borregard, who ran for county commissioner in 2010 but was defeated in the Democratic primary, has the option of challenging the decision in court. He could also choose to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

In another county board race, two Ypsilanti Township candidates who had previously filed to run for the commissioner seat in District 5 – Rick Roe and Michael White – have withdrawn from that Aug. 7 primary race. The deadline to withdraw was 4 p.m. Friday, May 18. That leaves incumbent Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr. unchallenged in the primary.

For a list of county candidates in the Aug. 7 primary election, see Chronicle coverage: “Last Minute Filings: Washtenaw County Races.”

District 2 Ballot

Eric Borregard filed his affidavit to become a Democratic candidate for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on March 8, 2012. He has run for office several times in the past, most recently in 2010 for the District 1 county board seat. In that race, he lost in the three-way August primary to Adam Zemke, earning 15.06% of the vote compared to 69.98% for Zemke and 14.69% for the other Democratic candidate, Reid McCarthy. Zemke was subsequently defeated by Republican Rob Turner in the general election.

When candidates file their paperwork to run for office, the county clerk’s staff checks to confirm the accuracy of information submitted by candidates by using the Michigan Qualified Voter File, a database maintained by the state. Initially, county clerk Larry Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that the day after Borregard filed for the 2012 election, the clerk’s staff checked the QVF and found that it listed Borregard as a resident of District 1. Kestenbaum explained this by saying that the state had not yet updated the QVF to reflect the new county districts.

But on Friday night, Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle that the state disputed that claim and that the QVF had been updated by the time that Borregard had filed in March. Golembiewski said he checked the county’s records again on Friday night and found that, in fact, the QVF had been updated at the time of Borregard’s original filing. It now appears that the candidate filed to run in the incorrect district, and the county clerk’s staff didn’t catch the error when reviewing Borregard’s paperwork.

The error came to the attention of the clerk’s staff a few minutes after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, when Kent Martinez-Kratz, the only other Democrat running in District 1, contacted the clerk’s office. At that point, Kestenbaum decided to offer Borregard the opportunity to amend his affidavit to reflect the correct district – District 2. Borregard submitted that amendment at 5:22 p.m. on May 15, more than an hour after the filing deadline.

Dan Smith, who was first elected in 2010 for a term beginning in January 2011, is unopposed in the Republican primary. And other than Borregard, no other Democratic candidates filed in District 2. Kestenbaum reported that Smith had inquired about the timeline of events regarding Borregard’s filing, and on Thursday, May 17 the county clerk’s staff prepared a written timeline at Smith’s request. [.pdf of timeline from clerk's office]

In an interview with The Chronicle early Friday afternoon, May 18, Kestenbaum said that he had consulted with the county’s corporation counsel and staff at the state Bureau of Elections, and “as far as I’m concerned, it’s settled.” Borregard filed in a timely matter, and filed in the district he believed was correct – and the clerk’s staff had confirmed that information, Kestenbaum said. He said it wasn’t the candidate’s fault that the QVF hadn’t been updated. [At the time of his conversation with The Chronicle, Kestenbaum asserted that the QVF had not been up to date.]

Kestenbaum said his general philosophy is to err on the side of letting people run for office so that voters can decide, and not create barriers to getting on the ballot. He noted that there was a special election on May 8 based on the current districts for the county board, while at the same time candidates were filing for races in the new districts. [Democrat Felicia Brabec won that May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn – a special election prompted by last year's resignation of former commissioner Kristin Judge.]

Regardless, Kestenbaum said, his office should have checked the candidates’ addresses against a map of the new county board districts, but they didn’t. Borregard relied on confirmation by the clerk’s office that his filing was accurate, Kestenbaum said.

[By way of background, Kestenbaum – a former county commissioner who represented one of Ann Arbor's districts – chaired the county apportionment commission, which developed and approved the county board redistricting plan in May of 2011. Other members of the apportionment commission were county treasurer Catherine McClary; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party; and Mark Boonstra, then-chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee. See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Loses 2 Seats in Redistricting."]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, in connection with the U.S. Census. So it would be rare for confusion about the district boundaries to arise in connection with candidate filings. Kestenbaum characterized it as a clerical error, and did not recall encountering any similar cases for this type of race.

Before the state weighed in, Kestenbaum had said that if Smith was aggrieved by the decision to include Borregard on the District 2 ballot, he had the option of filing a lawsuit in the 22nd Circuit Court. Now, Borregard would have that same option. Kestenbaum was uncertain whether there is a deadline by which such a filing would need to occur. Golembiewski noted that the ballots will be approved by the county board of election commissioners, which meets on June 11.

Kestenbaum, as county clerk, also serves on the board of election commissioners. Other members are the county treasurer (McClary) and Donald Shelton, chief judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. Kestenbaum and McClary were elected clerk and treasurer as Democrats, and are both running for re-election this year. Shelton was elected judge on a non-partisan ballot, but in the past has run for office as a Democrat. This group is also responsible for ruling on the clarity of ballot language for recall petitions, for example.

Ballots for the Aug. 7 primary elections will begin to be created as early as next week. The county contracts with Government Business Systems (GBS) to do its ballot programming.

Borregard also has the option to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

When asked about the partisan implications of this situation, Kestenbaum said he would have done the exact same thing if Borregard had been a Republican. “In fact, I wish it were a Republican,” he added, so that the partisan question would be irrelevant. He said he detests political considerations being a factor in what goes on the ballot, citing his disagreement with a recent decision by the state Board of State Canvassers as an example. That board denied approving petitions to put a repeal of the state’s emergency manager law on the ballot because the petitions weren’t circulated with the font size required by law. That decision is being appealed.

In a phone conversation with The Chronicle on Friday afternoon before the state weighed in, Smith had said he wasn’t prepared to make a statement on the issue. He had planned to talk with people about it over the weekend at the Republican state convention in Detroit – Smith is a delegate from Precinct 3 in Northfield Township.

Update: Late Sunday night, May 20, Dan Smith emailed this statement to The Chronicle: “Mr. Kestenbaum has jeopardized the transparency and integrity of the Clerk’s office; undermining the hard work of the dedicated public servants under his supervision. However, a detailed accounting at this time would do little to advance the concerns of those in the 2nd district. My focus remains on the residents of Washtenaw County: providing for their public safety needs, being accountable for their tax dollars, and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their government.”

Democrat and current county commissioner Yousef Rabhi picked up nominating petitions earlier this week, and plans to run for re-election. Elected to his first term in 2010, Rabhi now represents District 11, but would be running next year for a seat in the new District 8.

County commissioners are elected to two-year terms, with the next election occurring in 2012. Starting with that election cycle, the current 11-member county board of commissioners will shrink to nine members, due to a redistricting plan adopted earlier this year. Three of the new districts – 7, 8 and 9 – will represent Ann Arbor. Currently, four of the board’s 11 districts represent Ann Arbor. [map of new county board districts] For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Loses 2 Seats in Redistricting.”

Montague has been affected by redistricting in the past. She served for 12 years as county commissioner, but lost the seat when she was defeated by Bergman in a 2002 Democratic primary for a new district created after the previous redistricting process. Montague most recently ran against Bergman in the 2006 primary race that included Audrey Jackson, but was again defeated when Bergman retained the seat.

Montague spoke during public commentary at the April 28, 2011 meeting of the Washtenaw County apportionment commission, which oversees the redistricting process every 10 years. She talked about the importance of everyone in the community having a voice, and having their vote count. She told the commission that it’s important for minorities in this county to have the opportunity to be elected to public office, so that their voices aren’t just heard – they’re also able to make a contribution. Montague is African American.

For the county commissioner race, candidates have the option of filing nominating petitions with signatures from registered voters, or paying a $100 fee. That fee is refundable for candidates who come in first or second place in the primary. Montague paid the fee. Most candidates choose that option, according to deputy county clerk Matt Yankee.

In addition to the regular election cycle, the county board will be appointing a replacement for the seat vacated by commissioner Kristin Judge, who is resigning effective Oct. 9. The board must make an appointment within 30 days of her resignation, followed by a Feb. 28, 2012 primary (along with the presidential primary) and a May 2012 special general election for that seat. The winner of that election would serve a truncated term for the current District 7, through 2012.

The council had postponed the issue at its July 5 meeting, but not before unanimously agreeing to alter the timing of the boundary changes, which had originally been recommended by the city attorney’s office to come between the primary elections for city council, which were held Aug. 2, and the general election to be held Nov. 8.

While the minor changes to the boundaries themselves had not been met with strong objections, the timing had been controversial. So at their July 5 meeting, councilmembers agreed to change the effective date of the boundary changes to Dec. 1, 2011.

The staff-recommended tweaks approved at the Aug. 4 agenda showed minor differences from the changes recommended on July 5. All changes involve the way the tips of the pie-shaped wedges come together.

In the July 5 version, Ward 5 was bounded by Huron Street to the north and Madison Street to the south as it came towards the city center. In the Aug. 4 version, the Ward 5 northern boundary was dropped to Liberty Street, and to compensate the Ward 5 pie tip extended farther to the east.

In the July 5 version, the boundary between Wards 3 and 4 was aligned to Packard Street. But in the Aug. 4 version, the existing protrusion of Ward 4 across Packard, between Arch and Wells streets, was preserved. And to compensate, Ward 4 was pushed back from South University, with the result that Monroe Street, east of State Street, is a part of Ward 3. [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from Aug. 4] [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from July 5.]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ultimately, the council decided to postpone the boundary changes. But before the postponement, the council amended the ordinance to make the changes that they eventually agree on effective on Dec. 1, after the Nov. 8 election.

All public commentary on the issue encouraged the city council not to enact the boundary changes between the primary and the general elections. Public commentary included remarks from John Shea – a representative of the Washtenaw branch of the lawyer’s committee for the American Civil Liberties Union – and local attorney Tom Wieder. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum attended the meeting, but did not sign up in time to be included among the first 10 reserved speaker slots. (Reserved commentary slots are reserved on a first-come-first-served basis.)

[Previous Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait"]

By the numbers, if the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped, per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89%)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000, the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

As proposed, the city’s redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)]. To restore the balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on reassignment where the five wedges of the ward pie meet, in the center of the city near the downtown. [.pdf of City of Ann Arbor proposed ward boundary changes ] [.pdf of ward boundary changes proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

One of those items features a proposal to redraw the boundaries for the city’s five wards. The resolution before the council would change the boundaries during the time between the Ann Arbor city council primary election in August and the general election in November. While the changes to the boundaries are relatively minor and are not the subject of great dispute, the proposed timing of the changes is controversial enough that several redistricting experts may appear at the council’s meeting to weigh in on the topic during public commentary.

And the council reportedly may decide to convene a closed session on the subject, citing attorney client privilege. If the council were to convene such a closed session, it would be the first such session convened since being sued by The Chronicle over a similar session in early September 2010. After publishing a July 2 column – “Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait” – The Chronicle has established that city staff were aware of the issue with sufficient time for the city council to take action. However, that did not result in resolving the redistricting issue before the primary election candidate filing deadline.

A second agenda item that may generate some discussion among councilmembers is a resolution that would increase voluntarily the payment the city makes to Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside collection of the city’s single-stream recycling carts – from $3.25 to $3.55 per month per cart. The city council had voted on March 15, 2010 to adopt the single-stream recycling program, which began exactly one year ago, on July 5, 2010.

The rationale for the change is that RAA is receiving less revenue than anticipated under the adopted contract. In the first year of the contract, RAA received less money from its cart-emptying service, because there are fewer carts deployed in the city than projected. And although the tonnage of recyclable material collected has increased, it has not increased by as much as projected, so RAA is receiving less revenue for tonnage than expected.

Not on the agenda – and not expected to be announced at tonight’s meeting – are names of the finalist candidates for the city administrator job. However, the council’s search committee is scheduled to meet in a closed session on Tuesday afternoon (July 5) to winnow down the applicant pool to a handful. Robyn Wilkerson, head of human resources for the city, indicated in an email to The Chronicle that she did not expect that names of finalists would be released until Thursday or Friday.

For Chronicle readers who want immediate reports on the votes taken by city council, check out The Chronicle’s Civic News Tickers – brief reports on actions taken by the council that will be filed during tonight’s meeting.

Ward Boundary Changes

Why is the city contemplating a change to its ward boundaries?

By the numbers, if the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped, per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89%)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000 the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

The city’s proposed redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)].

To restore population balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on shifting ward boundaries where the five wedges of the ward “pie” meet, in the center of the city near the downtown. [.pdf of City of Ann Arbor proposed ward boundary changes]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has proposed a slightly different tweak for a portion of the interface between Ward 1 and Ward 5. [.pdf of Briere's proposed ward boundary changes].

What’s controversial is not where the lines are being drawn but when they’re proposed to be enacted. It’s controversial enough that several redistricting experts are expected to attend the council meeting and weigh in during public commentary. Among them: Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, a representative from the Washtenaw branch of the lawyer’s committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (likely John Shea), and a local attorney who has extensive experience in past city of Ann Arbor ward redistricting, Tom Wieder.

A July 2 column published by The Chronicle argued against making the change between the primary and the general election: “Column: Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait.” The column makes the point that there was sufficient time between the release of the census data and the primary election candidate filing deadline to enact the ward boundary changes before that filing deadline – if the city had been aware of the issue in time.

Specifically, the census data were released on March 21, 2011, but the candidate filing deadline for the city council primary election was not until May 10. If acted upon in a timely fashion, the council could have given the boundary changes their two approvals at two separate meetings – as required for all ordinance changes. (The ward boundaries are expressed in a city ordinance.) The council had three regular meetings scheduled during that time period, and could, if necessary, have convened a special meeting for the first reading of the ordinance change.

Since that column was published, The Chronicle has established that the city was aware of the issue with sufficient time for the city council to take action. However, that did not result in resolving the redistricting issue before the primary election candidate filing deadline. An email from a city GIS coordinator to city clerk Jackie Beaudry and assistant city attorney Abigail Elias indicates that city staff were actively addressing the redistricting issue at least as early as April 12. [.pdf of email]. That left regularly scheduled meetings on April 19 and May 2 for the council to approve the boundary changes before the May 10 candidate filing deadline for the primary election, plus the option of scheduling a special meeting.

But the city council was reportedly not apprised of the redistricting question until its working session on June 13. As of Sunday evening, July 3, assistant attorney Abigail Elias was still working on a memo to the city council outlining her position that the boundary changes should be enacted after the primary but before the general election.

It’s not clear that her memo could legally form the basis of an attorney-client privileged closed session on the topic (which is reportedly planned for the council’s meeting) because Elias has already discussed with Wieder her legal position, together with the case law and the arguments she believes supports her position on the timing of the boundary change. (Wieder is not a member of the council or the city staff, and is thus not a client.)

Recycling Cart Contract Change

A proposal before the city council would increase voluntarily the payment the city makes to Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside collection of the city’s single-stream recycling carts – from $3.25 to $3.55 per month per cart. The city council had voted on March 15, 2010 to adopt the contract for the single-stream recycling program, which began exactly one year ago, on July 5, 2010.

At that time, the city approved a contract with RAA that called for a payment of $3.25 per month per cart that RAA empties, plus a per ton payment of between $18.74 and $30.00. The amount of revenue RAA has received last year through these two kinds of revenue has been less than projected.

Specifically, the tonnage payments received by RAA for fiscal year 2011 (which ended June 30) for recyclable material were projected to be $406,332, but in fact only generated $187,560 for RAA – only 46% of what was expected. The shortfall was $218,772.

Also, the city expected to distribute 32,779 carts, but it turned out that 29,734 carts were deployed, or 9.3% fewer than planned. A staff memo accompanying the resolution explained the reduced number this way: “… many of the smaller multi-family residential units that were previously using the 11-gallon recycling ‘totes’ are able to share recycle carts, resulting in a smaller number of deployed carts.” In terms of revenue, the reduced number of carts meant that RAA received only $1,159,626 compared to the projected $1,278,381, resulting in a shortfall of $118,755.

Summing the shortfalls in the two kinds of revenue ($118,755 + $218,772), RAA received $337,527 less than it expected for FY 2011. The proposed increase in the monthly per cart service fee – for all five years of the five-year contract – works out to nearly cover the annual shortfall that was due only to the decreased number of carts: $107,042 versus $118,755.

The overly-optimistic projections were made by the city’s recycling consultant Resource Recycling Systems and RecycleBank, a company that administers a coupon-based incentive program to encourage residents to recycle. When the council approved the single-stream recycling contract with RAA last year, it also struck a 10-year deal with RecycleBank, at roughly $200,000 per year, to administer their coupon-based incentive program to help boost recycling rates in conjunction with the single-stream rollout.

At the time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned the length of the RecycleBank contract, and established in the course of deliberations that the city’s opt-out clause would be less costly than the cost of the contract. He was concerned that the city had options in the event that RecycleBank’s incentives did not boost recycling tonnage to the levels that were forecast. ["Council Banks on Single-Stream Recycling"] From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Kunselman reflected on the fact that the roughly $200,000 per year over the life of the 10-year contract represented $2 million. He established that the escape clause for not funding the program was slightly less than $200,000 a year – to cover the under-appreciated capital investment in the trucks. In light of that, Kunselman wondered why it was necessary to have a 10-year contract. Getzloff indicated that there were a variety of term lengths for RecycleBank contracts and that the best price came with the longest one – a 10-year contract.

Kunselman returned to the topic of Ann Arbor’s already high 80-90% participation rate. Based on the chart that had been handed out to councilmembers, Kunselman wanted to know how much of the doubling of recycled tonnage could be attributed just to the implementation of the single-stream system independently of the incentive program.

Frey went through a chart that showed how estimates of the current level of 5,084 tons – for single households in Ann Arbor – would rise to 10,708 tons in the second year of the program. Of those 5,624 extra tons, fully 4,201 were attributable to the incentive program.

Kunselman also questioned whether the city would in effect be paying twice for the educational efforts of both Recycle Ann Arbor and of RecycleBank. McMurtrie replied by saying that “We’re all in this together.” RecycleBank, McMurtrie indicated, is simply a new layer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Change the Boundaries at All?

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

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

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

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

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

          Assigned      Deviation   Deviation
          Population    Number      Percent

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

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

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

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

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

Required Boundary Change Between Primary and General??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Not Just Change the Boundaries Now?

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

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

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

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

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

That scenario effectively disenfranchises the voter.

What Are Our Choices?

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

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

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

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

If the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000 the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

The proposed redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)].

To restore the balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on reassignment where the five wedges of the ward pie meet, in the center of the city near the downtown.

Part of a small wedge of the current Ward 1, between Geddes Avenue and South University, would be reassigned to Ward 2. A current Ward 1 area just south of South University Avenue between South Forest and South State would be reassigned to Ward 3 and Ward 4.

And the current area in Ward 1 bounded by East Huron, Division, Liberty and Main streets would become part of Ward 5. Also becoming a Ward 5 area would be the former Ward 1 area bounded by Liberty, Thompson, Madison and Division.

Ward 3 – which would, by a tiny fraction, wind up being the largest ward population-wise – would be reassigned some former Ward 4 areas, east of Packard, and north of Wells Street. That change would align the boundary between wards along Packard Street. [.pdf of city map showing redistricting]

This was the first public discussion of any redistricting proposal. The city’s election commission met last Friday, June 10, to go over the plan. To enact the plan, the city council will need to revise Chapter 17 of the city code, which lays out the ward boundaries. The two required readings and approvals by the council, together with a public hearing, could take place in July. Ward boundary changes would be effective before the Nov. 8, 2011 general election, but not before the Aug. 2, 2011 primary election.

The city election commission would need to approve changes to precinct boundaries that are required as a result of the redistricting.

The new redistricting plan approved earlier this month reduces the number of districts for the county board from 11 to 9. Ann Arbor will have three districts under the new plan, rather than the four districts currently in place, and the Ann Arbor residences of both Gunn and Rabhi will be located in the same new district. Gunn currently represents District 9. She was first elected to the county board in 1996, and also serves on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board and as chair of the Washtenaw Urban County. Rabhi is one of the newest county commissioners, first elected in 2010 and representing District 11.

The three Ann Arbor districts in the new district map of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, which was adopted by the county apportionment commission on Wednesday. The map was not intentionally drawn in the shape of faces – that's just a bonus. (Image links to full map.) (Photos by the writer.)

The redistricting also puts incumbents Alicia Ping, a Republican, and Democrat Wes Prater into the same district – the new District 3, covering south and southwestern Washtenaw County, including the city of Saline. The plan also keeps Scio Township mostly in the same district, District 1. Previously the township had been fragmented into several districts.

The vote came after more than a month of meetings and an hour of discussion and public commentary on Wednesday, including some harsh words from the only Republican on the five-member commission, Mark Boonstra. Boonstra, chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee, charged that he’d been pressured to adopt a 12-district plan that he said favored the incumbents and put Republican contenders at a disadvantage. Of the current 11-member county board, only three commissioners are Republican.

The plan that Boonstra says he was pressured to accept was the first one voted down on Wednesday – supported only by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who proposed it, and Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party. A second vote taken on a 9-district plan drawn by Boonstra was also defeated – Boonstra was the only one who voted in favor of it.

The final vote was for a 9-district plan drafted by county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and revised with input from other Democrats on the apportionment commission, including Kestenbaum and county treasurer Catherine McClary. It gained unanimous support from the full commission. [.pdf file of adopted 9-district county map]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, based on population changes determined by the U.S. census. Until this week, only two plans had been offered: one for 9 districts, another for 12. However, just hours before Wednesday’s 5:30 p.m. meeting, several new plans were submitted for consideration. In total, 11 plans were considered by the commission – for 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 21 districts. One resident during public commentary said he’d attended several previous meeting, and that it was shocking to arrive and see so many new plans on the day of the final vote.

All county commissioners are elected to two-year terms. The new districts will be used in next year’s elections, for commissioners who will take office in January 2013.

For additional background about the redistricting process, see Chronicle coverage: “No Decision Yet on County Redistricting,” “County Board Districts Likely to Change,” “Public Gives Input on County Redistricting,” “Washtenaw Redistricting Work Begins” and “County Clerk Outlines Redistricting Process.”

Initial Public Commentary

There were two opportunities for public commentary – the first one came at the start of Wednesday’s meeting. Among the group of a dozen or so people attending the meeting were four current county commissioners: Kristin Judge (D-District 7), Wes Prater (D-District 4), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Nancy Hedberg, Scio Township clerk, thanked commissioners for their hard work, and for taking her comments into consideration in their plans. [Scio Township is currently part of several county districts. Most of the proposed plans kept the township in only one or two districts.] While she liked one of the 9-district plans, Hedberg said she thought that one of the 12-district plans represented Scio the best, since it included part of Ann Arbor Township in the same district – the townships share similar issues, she said. However, if they go with the 12 districts, she added, “I would hope and pray that you never have a tie vote.”

Wes Prater, a York Township resident who currently represents District 4 on the county board of commissioners, said it looked like someone was trying to get rid of some of the commissioners: “That’s very evident here.” He said the apportionment commission had done a good job, and that the 12-district plan was by far the best one, as he’d indicated at previous meetings. It gives county commissioners about the right amount of population to represent. He said he didn’t know how they could handle a five-district plan, since the area for each district would be much larger. Prater said he gets calls from constituents all the time, and people are surprised when he tells them what’s available from the county, which he called an invisible government. While adding a new district, the 12-district plan would also keep the current commissioners in their current districts, he noted, adding “maybe that’s not what you want to do, but that’s OK.”

Bill Bigler of Ann Arbor asked whether the public would have another opportunity to address the apportionment commission. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, the commission’s chair, said there would be additional public commentary, but it was slated at the end of the meeting – after a likely vote to adopt a plan. Catherine McClary, the county treasurer and a member of the apportionment commission, said she wouldn’t object to moving public commentary – allowing people to comment after the plans had been presented, but prior to the commission’s deliberations and vote. Other commissioners agreed to that change.

Rob Turner, a Republican who represents District 1 on the county board of commissioners, looked at the redistricting plans before Wednesday's meeting and wrote a letter to the apportionment commission giving his feedback. A family commitment prevented him from attending the meeting later in the day.

Eric Sheie Scheie of Ann Arbor said he was surprised to see so many additional plans at this meeting – he wasn’t sure what was going on. [Sheie has filed nominating petitions with the city of Ann Arbor clerk's office and will be a Republican candidate for the city council seat in Ward 4, which is currently held by Democrat Marcia Higgins, an erstwhile Republican. ]

Kestenbaum read a handwritten letter from county commissioner Rob Turner, a Republican who represents District 1, which covers the west and northwest portion of the county. Turner felt that the plans with fewer districts resulted in districts that were too large for commissioners effectively to stay in contact with constituents, and that 21 districts would be too costly and make it difficult to get things done. He said he leaned toward a 10-district plan – one proposed by Boonstra – that would keep costs down.

McClary read an email that the commission had received from Dan Murray of Saline, who said he preferred the 9-district plan.

Apportionment Commissioner Commentary

Before the plans were presented, Mark Boonstra – a member of the apportionment commission, and chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee – read a statement that raised concerns over the redistricting process. [.pdf file of Boonstra's full statement]

“I think it’s time to say some things very candidly about this process,” Boonstra began. The commission is obliged by state statue and case law to consider specific factors when redistricting, he said, but one thing they are not to consider is partisan advantage. It’s an issue that he’s particularly sensitive to, he said, given that he’s the only Republican on the five-member commission, that only a third of the population in the county are Republicans, and that only three of the 11-member county board are Republicans.

He noted that he’s been interested in addressing the issue of township islands located within the city of Ann Arbor. [The issue of how to handle township islands has emerged at each of the apportionment commission's meetings. According to city of Ann Arbor planning staff, there are roughly 560 township properties located within the city. Most of the parcels are single- or two-family residential properties, or are vacant lots. The large majority of islands belong to Ann Arbor Township, followed by Scio Township, with a handful left in Pittsfield Township.]

The islands cause split precincts, he said, which is something they should try to avoid if possible. But he kept being told that it was impossible to resolve all the island issues. It took him a long time to get the data he requested, but he eventually did and was able to draw plans that did, in fact, resolve all the issues related to township islands and eliminate all split precincts, he said.

Boonstra noted that the first plan submitted several weeks ago by Larry Kestenbaum, for 12 districts, added a new district for Scio Township but kept all the current commissioners in their own districts – even though “three of them live within a stone’s throw of each other.” [He was referring to Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Wes Prater (D-District 4) and Kristin Judge (D-District 7).]

Even though the apportionment commission is not required to draw districts that would protect current incumbents, Boonstra said he was willing to support a 12-district plan with some modifications. The original plan unnecessarily split certain geographic areas to make one particular district likely to be more Democratic than it currently is – “and it just so happened to be the very district where a Republican defeated a Democratic incumbent in the last election,” he said. [This was a reference to District 2, in which Republican Dan Smith defeated Democrat incumbent Ken Schwartz in November 2010.]

He proposed revisions to the 12-district plan, but that plan was then revised again by Kestenbaum. This latest version, Boonstra said, split two precincts in York Township – for the purpose of boosting the Democratic incumbent [Wes Prater], keeping Prater’s residence in that district and making it even more difficult for Republicans to win that seat, he said. In addition, Boonstra contended that the revisions added one northern Ann Arbor precinct to the district that includes Ann Arbor Township district, making it more difficult for Republicans to win.

Boonstra said that over the past weekend, he learned that certain incumbent Democrats were upset with him and had vowed to “turn up the heat.” Then on Monday, he said, a new five-district plan was circulated among the apportionment commissioners. [That plan was drawn by Kestenbaum.] Boonstra said it would fail every test except for population variance, and seemed designed to send the message that he should play ball or risk losing Republican representation on the board of commissioners. “That is improper,” Boonstra said.

From left: Mark Boonstra, Catherine McClary, Larry Kestenbaum of the county apportionment commission at their May 11 meeting.

There’s no surer way to cost taxpayers a lot of money in attorney fees, he said, than to propose a plan that will be challenged in the state Court of Appeals. And addressing incumbent Democrats on the county board, he said they should make their statements during public commentary, but otherwise should “butt out.”

“We have a solemn duty to perform,” Boonstra said, “and it does not involve drawing district lines either to keep you in a safe district or to try to oust you from the board. Let us do our job.”

He noted that he had submitted four plans – for 8, 9, 10 and 11 districts – that all fully resolve the issues of township islands and split precincts. He encouraged serious consideration of those plans. [.pdf of Boonstra's 8-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 9-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 10-district plan] [.pdf of Boonstra's 11-district plan]

Cleveland Chandler, chair of the county’s Democratic Party, was the only other commissioner to weigh in before the formal presentation of the redistricting plans. He said he’d just received Boonstra’s four plans that morning. He noted that the last time the board of commissioners had nine districts, there were about 64,000 fewer residents in Washtenaw County. In addition, the road mileage in the county has increased from about 12,000 miles to roughly 16,000 miles – taking care of roads is one of the county’s more important jobs, he said. [Though the county board of commissioners appoints the Washtenaw County road commissioners, the road commission is a separate county entity.]

Chandler said that he supported the 12-district plan, because cutting the number of commissioners wouldn’t be in the best interest of the citizens.

Redistricting Plans: Presentation

Kestenbaum was the first to present his redistricting plans, starting with the 12-district plan that had undergone several revisions. He began by saying that Boonstra’s criticisms weren’t justified. [Though Boonstra did not identify people by name in his remarks, he later confirmed that his comments were directed at Kestenbaum and county commissioner Wes Prater.]

Kestenbaum said he’d tried to create smooth boundaries, because complicated boundaries are always subject to change. He noted that this plan did split several precincts, but stated that precincts will likely be redrawn anyway. [Kestenbaum had stated at previous meetings that the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti will likely see their precincts redrawn, as part of the redistricting process for state and congressional districts.]

He also said he believed the goal of putting all township islands in a district with their township can be pushed too far – islands are scattered throughout the city, he said, and some township voters might not want to be included in a district dominated by Ann Arbor.

Maps for six of the 11 redistricting plans hung on the walls of the lower-level conference room at the county administration building, where the May 11 apportionment meeting was held. The map on the far right, drawn by Larry Kestenbaum, is for 21 districts – the maximum allowed by law.

Kestenbaum said he regretted that York Township was split, but that part of the goal was to keep Pittsfield Township intact. Boonstra had felt the original version disadvantaged Republicans, Kestenbaum said, but that was never his intent. At Boonstra’s suggestion, he had moved two urban precincts in southern Superior Township into the district with Ypsilanti Township.

Mackie asked how Kestenbaum’s plan affects the administration of elections – would it be more difficult for township clerks and the county clerk’s office? Kestenbaum said he thought the proposed changes would have only a minor impact.

Boonstra objected to the 12-district plan, which would lead to redrawing precincts in the city of Ann Arbor. Shouldn’t they be following precinct lines, rather than having precincts redrawn to fit their plan? Ideally, Kestenbaum said, but he didn’t believe it would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Mackie said the process this year had been more pleasant than the one he was involved with 10 years ago. At that time, he got a great deal of grief from incumbent commissioners, he said. Mackie praised Julia Roberts, who had been hired as support staff for the redistricting process – she knew the software, not the politicians, and she wasn’t biased, he said.

Mackie expressed regret that his 9-district plan would hurt his favorite commissioner, Wes Prater. He met Prater in 1978, when Mackie was a new assistant county prosecutor. Prater is the ideal public servant, Mackie said, and yet the 9-district plan isn’t kind to him. There’s nothing partisan about it – it just worked out that way, he said.

It wasn’t necessary to threaten lawsuits, Mackie said, referencing Boonstra’s commentary. He believed they’d adopt a plan that’s fair to everyone. As far as Republicans being in the minority, “I don’t know what to do about that,” he said. People live where they live.

Wrapping up, Mackie said he now preferred a revised version of his 9-district plan – labeled plan K. [This is the plan that was ultimately adopted.] It moves some precincts from southern Superior Township into the district with Ypsilanti Township, because those two areas have more in common. He noted that the plan’s population variance is 5.6%, which is lower than his original plan. [Districts are allowed up to an 11.9% population variance set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Abate v. Mundt. While the goal is to create districts with roughly equal population, the court ruled that there can be up to an 11.9% variance from that “ideal” population.]

McClary also thanked Roberts as well as the staff of the county clerk’s office. She said she’d asked Mackie to preserve the student districts, and the 9-district plan K had achieved that goal more than the 12-district plan. Plan K also strengthens District 6 for minority representation, she said. McClary said she knew Boonstra was concerned about the township islands, but she couldn’t see her way clear to address that and still achieve other goals. She agreed with Mackie that they took more grief about the process 10 years ago. At that time, she had supported dropping down to five districts, but she no longer would support that. McClary thought the 9-district plan K made the most sense.

Chandler noted that this was the first time he’d been involved in this process. He felt like he’d been boxed in a bit. The Washtenaw County Democrats had passed a resolution in December 2010 – before he became chair of that group and before the redistricting process started – which called for preserving 11 districts to ensure minority representation. Actually, he said, his view is to find the best plan to represent all the citizens of the county. He said he isn’t even familiar with where the Republican parts of the county are located. Chandler said he thought nine commissioners wouldn’t be enough to adequately represent the increased population of the county.

Mackie said he’d been offended at a previous meeting when someone during public commentary had called for making sure the seat of one particular commissioner was preserved, because of minority representation. [The remarks had referred to the seat held by Ronnie Peterson, who represents District 6 in Ypsilanti and parts of Ypsilanti Township. Peterson is black.] For one thing, Mackie said, there is another minority on the board – Conan Smith, the board’s chair, is the grandson of the city’s first black mayor, Al Wheeler, who was also the first African American professor of microbiology at the University of Michigan. Mackie also noted that countywide, voters have elected minorities – including judges [Cedric Simpson and Nancy Francis, a daughter of Al Wheeler] and the sheriff [Jerry Clayton].

The county board isn’t like most legislative bodies, Mackie said. Its main job is to set priorities through the budget. Prater has always understood that, he said. Mackie concluded by saying the 9-district plan does a better job at representing county citizens.

Kestenbaum mentioned that when the redistricting process started, his original intent had been to draw plans for the full range of options allowed by law – from five to 21 districts. He hadn’t been able to do that, he said, but he did draw up plans at the end of the range. A five-member board would be completely different, he said, and would require a lot more work from each commissioner. From a population variance standpoint, it’s the best plan – overall, it has less than a 1% variance from the ideal, he said.

Regarding the 21-district plan, Kestenbaum said he didn’t think there was any chance it would be adopted, but it was interesting to see.

Boonstra was the final apportionment commissioner to weigh in. It had been his first time to serve on the commission too, he said, and he’d gotten to know some people he hadn’t known before, and had come to like and respect them. He said he hadn’t come into the process with any particular plan in mind.

Regarding the other new plans, he said he’d only been sent the five-district plan, and he found it curious that he hadn’t been sent the other new plans. He noted that he never withdrew his 12-district plan – one that had made revisions to Kestenbaum’s original – but that it wasn’t included in their discussion, and hadn’t been posted on the wall with the other plans. It’s still on the apportionment commission’s website, he said. He preferred it to the one that Kestenbaum had revised again, which splits two York Township precincts “for no appropriate reason.”

Of the three proposed 9-district plans, Boonstra said he preferred plan K.

He then described his own four plans for 8, 9, 10 and 11 districts, noting how they addressed the problems with split precincts and township islands by creating districts that spanned the townships and city.

Additional Public Commentary

Bill Bigler said he had a lot of questions. He asked for clarification – why does it make elections a nightmare to have split precincts and township islands?

From left: Scio Township trustee Dick DeLong, Scio Township clerk Nancy Hedberg, and Stan Watson of Pittsfield Township at the May 11 meeting of the county apportionment commission.

Nancy Hedberg, Scio Township’s clerk, gave an example to illustrate the issues. For the November 2010 election, she said, there were 21 ballot styles for 9 precincts in Scio. It’s challenging for election workers to figure out which ballot to give to each voter. It’s not just because Scio has been split into multiple county board districts – it’s also represented by more than one state legislative district, congressional district and school district. And none of the boundaries match, she noted. Even though there are still some splits in the proposed county redistricting plans, they are much better than what currently exists, she said.

Al Hegerich of Ann Arbor clarified that precincts in Ann Arbor for state legislative and congressional redistricts will likely be redrawn – Kestenbaum confirmed that was the case. Hegerich said that whatever they do, they should aim for the most democratically representative plan. He noted that they have a difficult task, adding “Have fun!”

Kristin Judge, a current county commissioner representing District 7 in Pittsfield Township, thanked the apportionment commission for their time and effort. She said she knew it was a thankless job.

Eric Sheie of Ann Arbor noted that he’s attended several of the redistricting meetings, and it was shocking to arrive and see so many new plans. The last couple of meetings the debate had been between two plans – for 9 or 12 districts. So it was mind-boggling to see these new plans. He said he’d previously favored the 12-district plan, but he sensed that the group was leaning toward nine districts. In that case, he hoped they’d choose the 9-district plan that eliminated township islands and had the lowest population variance.

Stan Watson of Pittsfield Township thanked the commission for their work. He favored the 9-district plan with the lowest variance and that dealt with the township islands.

Bigler asked Kestenbaum to explain why it’s better to have “simple” boundaries, even if they split precincts. Kestenbaum said it was important to think about how voters interact with boundaries. Though he acknowledged the example was outdated, he said to imagine a voter on election eve, squinting at a map in the Ann Arbor News and trying to figure out where you should vote. It’s also an issue for people trying to campaign or represent a district – there are different costs involved in creating complex district boundaries.

When Bigler noted that the information is on everyone’s voter registration card, Kestenbaum asked whether Bigler carried that card with him. Yes, Bigler said. Kestenbaum then asked everyone in the room whether they had their cards, and most people raised their hands. Kristin Judge observed that it was likely a skewed sampling, indicating that the people at the meeting were probably more politically active than most.

Yousef Rabhi, a county commissioner who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, thanked the commission for the plans that keep students and young professionals generally in the same district – that will empower them to run for office, he said. Rabhi said he wasn’t overjoyed with all the plans, but he appreciated the opportunity for students who live in the eastern and southern parts of Ann Arbor to vote together – three of the plans do that, he said. He agreed with Mackie that a redistricting plan shouldn’t be drawn with one commissioner in mind.

Additional Public Commentary: Partisanship

Bigler raised the issue of partisan advantage in the redistricting process. There are three Republicans on the 11-member county board, or about a quarter of the board membership. However, Republicans account for about a third of the population in the county, he said. He asked the commission to comment on how the proposed plans would give partisan advantage one way or another.

McClary commented that she’s been involved in politics since the early 1980s 1972 and you never know how voters are going to act. Kestenbaum agreed, saying that those who try to gerrymander often don’t get the results they want – voters are unpredictable. He said commissioners wouldn’t comment about the plans as they relate to partisan advantage, but that Bigler certainly could.

Bigler responded by saying he wasn’t familiar enough with the plans or the political demographics to know what impact the changes would have.

Sheie said it would be dangerous to redistrict with an eye toward partisan advantage, because it would be based on current conditions. But census data indicates that the population is shifting, he noted – in the coming years, the political demographics will likely change. It would be like”trying to hit a moving dartboard,” he said.

Mackie observed that when he was first elected in 1992, he was the first Democratic prosecuting attorney elected since 1918. Kestenbaum was the first Democratic county clerk elected since 1932.

Additional Public Commentary: Township Islands

Bigler said he still had unresolved questions, but that he’d support Boonstra’s 9-district plan, which cleans up the township islands and doesn’t split precincts.

Mackie noted that he used to live in a township island – his mother’s house was on South State Street, in an Ann Arbor Township island. (He said people would likely recognize the house – it’s now occupied by a palm reader, and has a sign with a large hand on it.) As you drive south down State Street, you go through Ann Arbor, then Pittsfield Township, then Ann Arbor Township, then back into Ann Arbor. The real solution is to “get rid of the damn islands,” he said – it’s a ridiculous way to do business. But local governments keep kicking that can down the road, he added. It needs to be resolved.

Rabhi said he was under the impression that the islands would eventually be annexed. McClary said there’s an agreement with Ann Arbor Township to annex islands as property changed hands, or when the homes needed to be connected to the city’s sewer system. And many islands are vacant land – Boonstra noted that in his redistricting plans, he wasn’t concerned with those properties.

Kestenbaum observed that there are far fewer township islands than there were 20 years ago – it’s getting better.

Redistricting Plans: The Vote

Following the final public commentary, three votes were taken in quick order, with no discussion.

Kestenbaum made a motion to approve his 12-district plan. It was rejected on a 2-3 vote, with support only from Chandler and Kestenbaum.

Boonstra than moved to approve his 9-district plan. It was defeated on a 1-4 vote – only Boonstra voted for it.

Mackie then moved to approve the third iteration of his original 9-district plan – plan K. It received unanimous support.

“I believe we’re done,” Kestenbaum declared.

The approved 9-district plan for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Links to larger image.)