Donald Shelton, right, talks with former Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Scott Westerman, who attended an Aug. 1, 2013 hearing of the Washtenaw County election commission. Shelton, chief judge of the county trial court, chairs the commission, which held a clarity/factual review hearing for recall ballot language against six current AAPS trustees. For 18 years Westerman was a member of the men’s choral group Measure for Measure. Shelton is still a member. (Photos by the writer.)

Jody Huhn had submitted forms on July 17, 2013 to recall trustees Simone Lightfoot, Susan Baskett, Irene Patalan, Glenn Nelson, Andy Thomas, and Christine Stead. Patalan and Nelson did not attend the hearing. Three of the four trustees who did attend – Baskett, Thomas and Stead – addressed the commissioners, arguing that the recall language was not clear and not factual.

Huhn had cited four identical reasons in all six recall petitions: (1) failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities; (2) failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making; (3) failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting; (4) failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term. [.pdf of recall petition language]

Board president Deb Mexicotte was not included because state election law prohibits the filing of a recall petition against elected officials who are in the first year of their term, if that term is longer than two years. Nor can such officials be recalled in the final year of their term, for terms longer than two years. Mexicotte was re-elected to a four-year term in November 2012, for the only AAPS trustee position on that ballot – so she is still serving the first year of her current term. This particular recall constraint was part of broader changes in state election law through Public Act 417 of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 417 of 2012]

Related to item (4) in the proposed ballot language, the most recent AAPS superintendent, Patricia Green, turned in her resignation in early April after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation took effect in mid-July.

Huhn had supported Ben Edmondson for the superintendent’s position. Edmonson, principal at district’s Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, had been one of six semi-finalists selected by the AAPS board in its current superintendent search, but was not picked as one of the two finalists. Those two finalists – Brian Osborne and Jeanice Kerr Swift – were not internal candidates. Last month the board offered the job to Osborne, but he ultimately rejected the offer. Earlier this week, the board made an offer to Swift, who has agreed to enter into contract negotiations. She currently is an assistant superintendent at a school system in Colorado Springs.

Huhn attended the recall language hearing, but declined to address the board.

The election commissioners are Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk/register of deeds; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. After hearing from three AAPS trustees, election commissioners decided to address the issue of clarity first, and if the language were deemed to be clear, they would then move on to discuss the issue of factuality. Initial steps of a recall require that ballot language be deemed clear and factual by the board of election commissioners in the jurisdiction of the elected officials who are the target of the recall.

The requirement that the language be factual was part of Public Act 417, enacted in late 2012. Early in the morning of Aug. 1, Kestenbaum sent an email to the other two election commissioners stating that he does not believe the factual-standard requirement is constitutional. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email] This is the first recall effort launched in Washtenaw County since the factual requirement became law.

After brief deliberations, the three commissioners voted unanimously that the recall language in all six petitions – which contained identical wording – lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary made a motion to address the issue of factuality, stating that the recall language did not appear to be factual. She felt it was important for commissioners to weigh in on that issue. Her motion died for lack of a second. Shelton and Kestenbaum indicated that there was no need to deliberate on that issue, since the question of clarity had already been determined and the law requires that the language must be both clear and factual.

Clarity/Factual Review Hearing: Public Commentary

Donald Shelton, who chairs the commission in his capacity as chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court, began the hearing by asking Jody Huhn if she wanted to address the commission. “I’m good,” she replied, by way of declining his offer.

From left: Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Christine Stead before the Aug. 1 clarity/factual review hearing, which was held at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor.

Three trustees spoke to commissioners, starting with Susan Baskett. She described her self as a life-long resident of Ann Arbor and a 10-year member of the AAPS board of education. She was “hurt and dismayed” by the recall effort. “I felt I’d served honorably, on behalf of all the Ann Arbor Public Schools students and their families.” That includes listening to and learning from “anyone who’s been willing to teach me,” she said. Although she felt the recall was unwarranted, as a “true Democrat” she supported the right to mount a recall effort.

Baskett contested the recall language, saying it doesn’t meet the requirements of P.A. 417 of 2012, and she asked the commissioners to void this recall effort. She said she wasn’t a lawyer, but she had read the law – and “I do watch a lot of ‘Law & Order,’” she joked. Shelton replied, saying that given his regular job, “hearing from someone who’s not an attorney will be a welcome relief.”

Baskett stressed that the six trustees who were the target of the recall had not consulted with each other, nor had they hired an attorney to represent all of them. [Only Stead arrived with an attorney – Alan Harris, of the Bodman law firm. He did not formally address the commission.] Baskett said that while her arguments could apply to other trustees, she did not have their permission to speak on their behalf.

Each reason for the recall must be factual and of sufficient clarity, she noted, and if each reason doesn’t meet those standards, then the entire petition must be rejected. Baskett asserted that none of the reasons submitted for the AAPS recall were totally factual or had sufficient clarity.

The first reason – “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” – is very unclear, Baskett said. She challenged the definition of “thoughtful consideration,” and wondered how it could be proven. She said she could submit the names of people she has conferred with before and after nearly every vote. Baskett also wondered who the constituents are in this case. There’s a very diverse constituency for AAPS, and often those constituencies are conflicted, she said. Sometimes those constituencies are very vocal, and many times they are very quiet, she said. Baskett indicated that she has met with every group that has asked her to meet with them.

The second reason for the recall is “failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making.” What is meant by transparency? Baskett asked. She said she makes an effort at the board table to clearly state her reasons for voting a particular way, and if reasons aren’t transparent, then the media will ask for clarification.

Baskett also contested the third reason for the recall: “failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting.” This is the most confusing, she said. If she is expected to consider constituent priorities thoughtfully, then given that the AAPS constituencies are diverse and often conflicted, “split votes should be expected.” Even so, the superintendent follows the direction of the prevailing vote, she noted.

Jody Huhn, an AAPS parent who filed ballot language to recall six trustees.

Finally, Baskett addressed the fourth reason: “failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.” This was also unclear and factually inaccurate, she contended. Although she voted against hiring the previous superintendent, Baskett said, she can provide a list of ways she offered guidance and support to Patricia Green. Baskett said she coordinated meetings with Green and key community leaders, including Yolanda Whiten of the Ann Arbor Community Center, Joan Doughty of the Community Action Network, and Bonnie Billups of Peace Neighborhood Center. As another example, Baskett said she called Green when the “transportation debacle of 2011 first bubbled up,” and had explained the importance of Green showing up to neighborhoods like Arrowwood and Foxfire, where students were most affected.

Regarding the issue of turnover, the 2.25 years per term needs to be clarified, Baskett said. The average includes two interim superintendents who were intended to be short-term.

Baskett concluded by saying that the recall language should be rejected because it’s not factual and it lacks sufficient clarity.

Andy Thomas also addressed the commission, challenging each of the four recall reasons on the basis of clarity and factuality.

He began by noting that this hearing groups together six individual trustees, with identical reasons given for the recall of each trustee. However, the circumstances for each trustee are different. He pointed out that the time frames for actions covered in these recall petitions are different, depending on the term of each trustee. Under Michigan law, an elected official is subject to recall only for actions that occur during his or her current term, Thomas explained. The current terms of two trustees [Nelson and Patalan] began in July of 2009, with terms for two other trustees [Stead and Baskett] beginning in January of 2011. Two additional trustees [Thomas and Lightfoot] began their current turns in January 2012.

It appeared that the petitioner wanted to recall the entire board, Thomas said, but the reasons for a recall must apply to each individual trustee – “and that trustee alone,” he said.

Thomas then gave point-by-point objections to each recall reason. He objected to the first statement – “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” – for reasons of clarity, saying that the language is vague and unspecific. There’s no standard for “thoughtful consideration,” nor is there any objective way to measure thoughtfulness, he said. The petition also doesn’t address which constituents didn’t receive thoughtful consideration, or how priorities of multiple constituents might be weighed against each other, or how those priorities were articulated.

Thomas also contended that the first reason isn’t factually correct, saying he has listened to and given thoughtful consideration to concerns of many individuals. He said he’s the only trustee who schedules regular coffee hours with constituents. As chair of the board’s performance committee, he said he recently convened a meeting at the Roberto Clemente Development Center to address concerns of the Friends of Roberto Clemente group. As secretary of the board, he said he responds to all correspondence addressed to the board and has personally answered over 400 emails during the first six months of this year alone. He said he responds to specific concerns, and doesn’t just send out a form letter. Many constituents thank him for his thoughtful responses, Thomas said. “It is simply not true that I have not demonstrated thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities,” he said.

Regarding the second reason – “failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making” – Thomas objected based on clarity and factual accuracy. The language doesn’t establish any threshold for transparency, or give any specifics about how to demonstrate transparency. It doesn’t even offer a working definition of transparency, he noted. Also, all board meetings are subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act, Thomas said, and are open to the public. Most meetings are televised, and board decisions are made by a vote in public. Items are typically presented at two separate meetings prior to a vote, he reported, “giving the public ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the issues and offer their comments or concerns.”

He noted that regular board meetings and committee meetings are posted on the AAPS website and are open to the public. For two straight years, the district has received the highest rating given by the Sunshine Review, a transparency in government watchdog group, Thomas said. The district has held numerous meetings on issues like the budget and the superintendent’s search, he noted. The charge in the ballot language regarding transparency is untrue, he said.

AAPS trustee Andy Thomas signs in at the Aug. 1 clarity/factual review hearing.

Thomas also objected to the third reason: “failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting.” There are so many problems with this statement that it’s hard to know where to start, he said. Because the language is directed at him as a single trustee, it’s difficult to see how he’s failed to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction. “A single trustee cannot be cohesive – this is an attribute of the board as a whole,” he contended. Nor does a single trustee have the power over the entire board to create a singular direction.

The language on split voting is particularly troublesome, he said. It implies that an individual trustee is responsible for the votes of the other trustees. If he votes with the majority of trustees and another trustee is in the minority, it only happens after lengthy debate, Thomas said. Is it the expectation that he is responsible for convincing the other six trustees that he’s right? And if he’s not successful, is this sufficient reason for a recall? Or if he’s in the minority on an issue, should he vote against his conscience for the sole purpose of creating a unified vote? It’s the nature of a democracy that there will be legitimate differences of opinion, he said, and split votes simply underline this fact. A board that votes 7-0 on all issues “would be an oligarchy, not a democracy,” he said.

In addition, the third reason for the recall is factually incorrect, Thomas argued. The board has articulated a cohesive and singular direction by adopting the district’s strategic plan and mission statement. Also, split votes “are the exception, not the norm for this board.” The vast majority of votes are 7-0, he said, and split votes occur only on a small number of contentious issues.

Lastly, Thomas addressed the fourth recall reason: “failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.” He noted that public officials can only be recalled for actions during their current term. So the historical rate of superintendent turnover is not relevant. The proposed ballot language doesn’t specify a time period during which this turnover occurred. However, it appears to cover a much longer period than his current term of a year and seven months.

He also objected on grounds that the fourth was factually incorrect. The 2.25-year turnover average “appears to have been pulled out of thin air. As my ninth grade algebra teacher used to tell me, ‘Show your work.’” The only way to come close to this number is to include interim superintendents as part of the turnover, he noted, and an interim is not intended to be permanent.

In conclusion, Thomas stated that the language is problematic on multiple levels. The language is vague, subject to multiple interpretations, and doesn’t confine itself to his current term in office, as is required by law. It asserts as truth things that are factually incorrect or that can’t be substantiated in an objective way. “It is simply a hot mess.” He urged the commission to disallow the ballot language.

The final speaker was Christine Stead, the AAPS board’s vice president, who noted that the spirit of her concerns about the language had already been expressed well by her board colleagues. She said she had read the email sent out earlier that day by Larry Kestenbaum, one of the election commissioners, regarding whether the commission would address the issue of factuality. There are some difficulties in establishing facts asserted in the proposed language, she noted. Specifically, Stead cited the turnover rate of 2.25 years, given that the trustees have different terms. It’s also possible to dispute whether interim superintendents should be included in that rate.

Stead said she’s concurred that much of the language is mostly stated as opinion. That’s true with the first three reasons given in the proposed language, she noted, pointing to problems with factuality as well as clarity. Regarding the issue of split votes, she reported that she reviewed her own voting record and that 95.58% of votes cast were passed unanimously. That would challenge the notion of consistent split voting, she said. Similarly, the number for superintendent turnover rate would be different for her term, compared to other trustees.

Recall Language: Commission Deliberations

Catherine McClary began deliberations by clarifying that if any one item is found to be unclear or not factual, it would invalidate the entire petition. Donald Shelton and Larry Kestenbaum indicated that her understanding was correct. McClary then noted that previously, the commission only had to deal with clarity issues. Under the new law, did each item need to be clear and factual?

Shelton replied that each item must be clear and factual. In response to another query from McClary, Shelton explained that if it’s not clear whether the stated reasons apply to a trustee’s current term in office, then the language is improper on a clarity basis.

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, who is also a member of the county election commission.

Shelton also noted that he had read the email from Kestenbaum and that he was familiar with the issue that Kestenbaum had raised. [Kestenbaum also had brought copies of his statement to be distributed at the meeting.]

In his email, Kestenbaum argued that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis: “Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question. ”

Kestenbaum’s email concluded that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum stated that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees, he would apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

During the Aug. 1 hearing, Shelton laid out these points, saying that there’s a significant constitutional issue about whether any election commission can make factual determinations. He suggested that the commission consider the petitions first with regard to clarity. Then, if they determined that the language is clear, they could move to the factual question. If the language was unclear, they wouldn’t need to address the issue of factuality, he said. McClary and Kestenbaum concurred with that approach.

Speaking to the question of clarity, Kestenbaum said there have been numerous court decisions on what constitutes clear language for a recall. It’s not clear to simply put on a recall petition that someone isn’t doing a good job, he said – it’s a “nebulous assertion that doesn’t point to any specific thing.” The six petitions before the commission, which are all identical, are simply “a more long-winded way of saying ‘These people are not doing a good job.’” The more deeply you look at the language, he added, “the more nebulous it gets.”

Kestenbaum noted that if this recall moved forward, petitioners would need to carry around six separate petitions and get separate signatures for each petition. However, he suggested that the commission could address all six petitions in one motion, since the petitions are identical. He then made the following motion:

Resolved: That the reasons stated in the recall petitions submitted by Jody Huhn against Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, Irene Patalan, Christine Stead and Andy Thomas are not of sufficient clarity to enable the officer of this recall that is sought and the electorate to identify a course of conduct which is the basis of the recall.

McClary supported the motion, but wanted to make two amendments. She wanted the record to reflect separate resolutions for each petition, even though the commission would be acting on them with one vote. That’s because the petitions are against individual trustees, not the group, she explained.

From left: Election commissioners Donald Shelton and Larry Kestenbaum.

She also wanted the resolution to state that it does not appear the reasons given for the recall occurred within the terms of office for the AAPS trustees. Kestenbaum argued that the commission didn’t need to speak to that issue in its motion. McClary replied that as long as the point was encompassed as part of the lack of sufficient clarity, she was fine with the resolution.

Shelton took McClary’s first amendment as a friendly one, meaning that no separate vote was required on that amendment.

Shelton explained his view on the clarity issue, saying it was the way that the law requires the commission to look at it. He asks himself two questions. Would an ordinary voter – when confronted with a petition on their porch or grocery store parking lot or voting booth – clearly understand the allegations that are being made against the office holder? Secondly, are the allegations clearly stated so that the targeted elected officials could reasonably defend themselves? “To me, those are the reasons why this commission is here,” he said – to protect voters from signing a petition that might mean different things to different people, and to give elected officials a reasonable opportunity to state their response.

If these petitions were approved and got enough signatures to appear on the ballot, the ballot would also contain a statement of defense by each targeted elected official. Shelton said that when he read the petition and looked at each of the four allegations separately and as a whole, “frankly, my answer was no as to both of those questions.”

Addressing the individual allegations, Shelton said that demonstrating thoughtful consideration “is in the eye of the beholder.” Transparency is a word that’s used a lot, he noted, but he didn’t understand what was intended by transparency in decision-making. He also said he wouldn’t know what “cohesive direction” or “split voting” means, if he were reading the language on his porch. Regarding the “failure to provide sufficient backing and support” for the superintendent, Shelton said “I guess that depends on whether you agree with the proposition to be supportive or opposed.” In his view, the language wouldn’t be clear to the voter or targeted official.

Outcome: The three election commissioners unanimously voted that the petition language lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary then offered six motions stating that the reasons in the recall language “appear not to be factual.” Noting that she respected Kestenbaum’s position, McClary said “I think that we would be remiss if we don’t deal with the factuality under the new law.”

She thought that “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” could be true. Failure to demonstrate transparency seems not to be true, she said, given evidence presented to the commission about the Sunshine Review’s assessment of AAPS. The commission got data on split voting and superintendent turnover, McClary noted, so she didn’t think those allegations were true either. “I think it would behoove this election commission to be on record in each of the six instances that we don’t believe that the petitions appear to be factual.”

Kestenbaum pointed out that under the law, the petitions are required to be both factual and clear. “So finding it to be unclear is sufficient,” he said, and it’s not necessary to proceed with the question of factuality.

“I’ll use the lawyer word,” Shelton said. “I think it’s moot, given our finding on clarity.”

Shelton then declared that McClary’s motions had died for lack of support, and the meeting was adjourned.

Recall Process

It’s possible to appeal a decision by the county election commission. An appeal must be made within 10 days to the county circuit court. In Washtenaw County, that’s the 22nd circuit court. Donald Shelton is chief judge of both the circuit and probate courts, which are collectively known as the Washtenaw County trial court.

The process is laid out in Public Act 116 of 1954, section 168.952(6):

The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the recall petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal shall be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners. If a determination of the board of county election commissioners is appealed to the circuit court in the county, the recall petition is not valid for circulation and shall not be circulated until a determination of whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity is made by the circuit court or until 40 days after the date of the appeal, whichever is sooner. [.pdf of recall process and timeline]

This hearing is also likely the final one to be presided over by Shelton. State law stipulates the composition of the election commission as the county treasurer, county clerk and chief probate judge. Although Shelton is chief judge of the probate court, he was not elected as a probate judge – but rather as a judge to the 22nd circuit court. He has designated the senior probate judge, Nancy (Francis) Wheeler, to take the spot on the election commission.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County election commission. 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!

The election commissioners are Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk/register of deeds; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. They cited a lack of sufficient clarity in the language as the reason for their decision.

On July 17, 2013 Jody Huhn – a parent with children in the AAPS system – submitted language to recall six trustees: Simone Lightfoot, Susan Baskett, Irene Patalan, Glenn Nelson, Andy Thomas, and Christine Stead. Patalan and Nelson did not attend the hearing. Three of the four trustees who did attend – Baskett, Thomas and Stead – addressed the commissioners, arguing that the recall language was not clear and not factual.

In documents submitted to the Washtenaw County director of elections, Huhn cited four reasons for this recall [.pdf of recall petition language]:

(1) failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities; (2) failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making; (3) failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting; (4) failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.

Board president Deb Mexicotte was not included because state election law prohibits the filing of a recall petition against elected officials who are in the first year of their term, if that term is longer than two years. Nor can such officials be recalled in the final year of their term, for terms longer than two years. Mexicotte was re-elected to a four-year term in November 2012, for the only AAPS trustee position on that ballot – so she is still serving the first year of her current term. This particular recall constraint was part of broader amendments in state election law Act 417 of 2012. [.pdf of Act 417 of 2012]

Related to item (4) in the proposed ballot language, the most recent AAPS superintendent, Patricia Green, turned in her resignation in early April after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation took effect in mid-July.

Huhn had supported Ben Edmondson for the superintendent’s position. Edmonson, principal at district’s Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, had been one of six semi-finalists selected by the AAPS board in its current superintendent search, but was not picked as one of the two finalists. Those two finalists – Brian Osborne and Jeanice Kerr Swift – were not internal candidates. Last month the board offered the job to Osborne, but he ultimately rejected the offer. Earlier this week, the board made an offer to Swift, who has agreed to enter into contract negotiations.

Huhn attended the recall language hearing, but declined to address the board.

Initial steps of a recall require that ballot language be deemed clear and factual by the board of election commissioners in the jurisdiction of the elected officials who are the target of the recall. Clarity is defined in terms of the ability of the officer whose recall is being sought and for electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.

The requirement that the language be factual was added to the legislation as an amendment to Act 417 of 2012. Early in the morning of Aug. 1, Kestenbaum sent an email to the other two election commissioners – Shelton and McClary – stating that he does not believe the factual-standard requirement is constitutional. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email]

In his email, Kestenbaum argued that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Kestenbaum concluded that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum stated that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees, he would apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

At the Aug. 1 hearing, commissioners decided to address the issue of clarity first, and if the language were deemed to be clear, they would then move on to discuss the issue of factuality. After brief deliberations, the three commissioners voted unanimously that the recall language in all six petitions – which contained identical wording – lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary made a motion to address the issue of factuality, stating that the recall language did not appear to be factual. Her motion died for lack of a second. Shelton and Kestenbaum indicated that there was no need to deliberate on that issue, since the question of clarity had already been determined and the law requires that the language must be both clear and factual.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Kestenbaum, who is one member of the three-member board of election commissioners for Washtenaw County, made the announcement in an email sent early on Aug. 1, 2013 to the other two members of the board: Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email]

Kestenbaum’s email comes in the context of a scheduled hearing today, Aug. 1, to review the proposed ballot language for a proposed recall for six Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees. That hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. today at the county boardroom, 220 N. Main Street in Ann Arbor. If the board of election commissioners deems the language to fall short of the legal standard, then petitions asking for a recall can’t be circulated.

In his email, Kestenbaum argues that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Kestenbaum concludes that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum states that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees today, he will apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

About the new standard, however, Kestenbaum states: “I respectfully decline to review any recall language for ‘factuality.’”

Kestenbaum’s email also states that he would oppose any attempt during the board of election commissioners meeting to weigh the question of whether the AAPS trustees recall language is “factual.”

In documents submitted to the Washtenaw County director of elections, Huhn cites  four reasons for this recall [.pdf of recall petition language]:

(1) failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities; (2) failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making; (3) failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting; (4) failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.

Updated after initial publication: State election law prohibits the filing of a recall petition against elected officials who are in the first year of their term, if that term is longer than two years. Nor can such officials be recalled in the final year of their term, for terms longer than two years. Deb Mexicotte was re-elected to a four-year term in November 2012, for the only AAPS trustee position on that ballot – so she is still serving the first year of her current term. This particular recall constraint was part of broader amendments in state election law P.A. 417 of 2012, according to Ed Golembiewski, Washtenaw County’s director of elections. [.pdf of P.A. 417 of 2012]

Initial steps of a recall require that ballot language be deemed clear and factual by the board of election commissioners in the jurisdiction of the elected officials who are the target of the recall. Clarity is defined in terms of the ability of the officer whose recall is being sought and for electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. The Washtenaw County board of election commissioners are Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk/register of deeds; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer.

The most recent AAPS superintendent, Patricia Green, turned in her resignation in early April after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation took effect in mid-July.

Huhn is an AAPS parent who had supported Ben Edmondson for the superintendent’s position. Edmonson, principal at district’s Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, had been one of six semi-finalists selected by the AAPS board in its current superintendent search, but was not picked as one of the two finalists. Those two finalists – Brian Osborne and Jeanice Kerr Swift – are not internal candidates. The AAPS board is expected to make its final selection at a meeting on Friday, July 19 at 5:30 p.m. at the Balas administration building, 2555 S. State St. The meeting is open to the public.

Huhn submitted the recall documents on July 17. The Washtenaw County board of election commissioners will hold a clarity/factual review hearing on Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013 at 1 p.m. in the boardroom of the Washtenaw County administration building at 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. Without approval by the board, the recalls can’t move forward unless the decisions are appealed.

After brief introductions, Leslie and Mexicotte were given a chance to ask the administrators any questions they had about the district and its operations.

Leslie took advantage of the occasion to talk about his campaign. He said he is familiar with the district, and made several criticisms – about the quality of instructional materials, the elimination of police liaisons in the high schools, and board’s goal setting.

Mexicotte responded to Leslie’s critique of the board by contrasting the goals that the board had set for itself internally with those it set for the district as a whole. Mexicotte had no informational questions of the administrators. She was first elected to the board in 2003 and currently serves as president of the board. Most recently, she was re-elected in 2010.

This year, the board seat that Leslie and Mexicotte are seeking will be for a four-year term ending in December 2016. The other six members of the AAPS board, whose terms continue at least through 2014, are Susan Baskett, Andy Thomas, Simone Lightfoot, Christine Stead, Glenn Nelson, and Irene Patalan.

Introductions 

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis welcomed everyone to the meeting, and the attendees briefly introduced themselves. [Dale Leslie is a former business owner of Leslie Office Supply and a former board member of the Ann Arbor Area chamber of commerce, prior to its merger with the Ypsilanti chamber. Deb Mexicotte works for the University of Michigan as assistant director in the Office of New Student Programs.]

All 11 administrators in attendance gave a brief overview of the scope of their departments within the district, and passed out business cards to each candidate.

In addition to Margolis, the district was represented by: Robert Allen, deputy superintendent for operations; Jenna Bacolor, director of community education and recreation; Elaine Brown, assistant superintendent for student intervention and support services; David Comsa, deputy superintendent for human resources and general counsel; Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent for instructional services; Patricia Green, superintendent; Dawn Linden, assistant superintendent for elementary education; Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting and research services; Robyne Thompson, assistant superintendent for secondary education and career and technical education; and Randy Trent, executive director of physical properties.

Also present was Teri Williams, election coordinator for AAPS. She passed out contact information for all district central administrators, as well as a guide on compliance with the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which school board candidates must follow. She urged the candidates to make sure any people who campaign on their behalf are also aware of the rules and regulations. Williams also referred the candidates to the Washtenaw County election office, as school district staff members do not advise school board candidates on campaign activities.

Leslie: Updating Instructional Materials

Dale Leslie indicated he was pleased to see the district hold such a forum for candidates. He stated that he’s familiar with how the district operates and how it should be improved, citing his experience as both an AAPS student and an AAPS parent. He highlighted a couple of the reasons why he was running for school board: a strong need for a different kind of educational paradigm – given that there will soon be teenagers in the high schools who were born in the 21st century – and a need for better communication.

When Leslie brought up the fact that the board recently had a presentation on replacing 10-year-old biology textbooks, Alesia Flye – deputy superintendent for instructional services – acknowledged the textbooks were outdated, which was the reason the board approved the purchase of new textbooks. Flye emphasized the curriculum review process that has been put in place over the past year, saying the community and the board should have a clear idea of instructional materials being used in the classroom. Superintendent Patricia Green added that the curriculum review cycle was implemented at the request of the board.

Leslie: Police Liaisons

Leslie asked if there had been any meetings with Ann Arbor police chief John Seto about negotiating the recent cuts to the district police liaison position. Leslie said that cutting all the positions was akin to “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” Green stated that before the positions were cut, there was significant conversation with the police chief. She said there have been subsequent conversations with city administrators and the police chief regarding different models of police involvement in schools. Green is advocating for regular meetings between the district, the police department, and city officials. [At the board's Aug. 15, 2012 meeting, the board heard public commentary calling for the positions not to be reinstated.]

Mexicotte: Board Leadership

Leslie also expressed dissatisfaction with the leadership on the school board, saying the foremost priority of the board should not just be “getting along with each other,” a goal the board identified at its recent retreat. He contended that the leader of the board should not have let it get to that point, a direct criticism of Mexicotte, the current board president.

When it was her turn to speak, Mexicotte thanked the administrators for their presence that evening, and said she had no questions. But she then took the opportunity to address Leslie, as both a candidate and a constituent. She clarified that the board set two goals for itself at their retreat in early August: the first, to build relationships and trust among the board members so they can work better together, and the second, to work towards being stronger financial advocates for the district. She said the next Committee of the Whole meeting [on Sept. 12, 2012] will be focused entirely on financial goals.

Mexicotte also acknowledged that the board, in conjunction with the district, works on a number of goals. She listed several that were worked toward over the past school year: the Achievement Gap Elimination Plan, the Discipline Gap Elimination Plan, energy policy, and curriculum review.

Upcoming Candidate Forum

The Ann Arbor Area League of Women Voters (LWV) will be holding a forum for school board candidates. [As of Aug. 31, the LWV website lists a candidate forum for board of education candidates to be held at 8 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 9 at the Community Television Network studio at 2805 S. Industrial Highway in Ann Arbor. The forums are typically broadcast live on CTN Channel 19 and are later available online for viewing on demand.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. 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!

Brought forward by superintendent Patricia Green, the amendments raised the salary of deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen by 7%, and that of assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa by 12%. The board also reclassified Comsa’s position, bringing him up to the executive level of the superintendent’s cabinet, and changing his title to “deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel.”

From left: Ann Arbor Public Schools administrators Dawn Linden, Liz Margolis, Alesia Flye, Dave Comsa, and Robert Allen. At its Dec. 14 meeting, the AAPS board voted on contracts for all of these administrators, with the exception of Margolis. (Photo by the writer.)

The board initially voted to consider the contracts as a first briefing, which meant the item would return to the board’s next meeting for a final vote, allowing more time for public input. But later in the meeting – about 1:30 a.m. – board president Deb Mexicotte moved to reconsider that initial vote, which it did, and the item was then classified as a special briefing, allowing the board to take a final vote that night. Trustee Simone Lightfoot called the move a “bait and switch.”

Mexicotte defended her decision, saying that she is elected to make decisions like these on behalf of the district. Other trustees backed that view. Irene Patalan said she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact, and this time would be no different.

In the end, concerns over transparency and equity for other employees were outweighed by the belief that salary adjustments were needed to retain Comsa and Allen, and to reflect their value to the district.

Also at the Dec. 14 meeting, on a 6-1 vote, the board ratified contracts for two new administrators hired by Green to complete her cabinet: deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The set of contract ratifications reflect Green’s desire to reorganize her executive cabinet to contain three deputy superintendents – Allen, Comsa, and Flye – at an equivalent salary of $140,000.

This report will cover in detail the discussions and procedure regarding the administrative contract ratifications. Additional coverage of the remainder of the Dec. 14 board of education meeting will be forthcoming in a separate report.

Agenda Approval

Near the beginning of the Dec. 14 meeting, the board engaged in a review of the meeting’s agenda, which it typically does with a simple assent. What made the Dec. 14 meeting agenda review atypical was an extended repertoire of parliamentary procedures: a motion, a friendly amendment, a calling of the question, and two roll call votes.

Part of the agenda included an item on ratifications for four administrator contracts: deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen; assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa; deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The item was included on the original agenda as a “special briefing.” Such items are briefed only once and voted on at the same meeting, usually because they are of a time-sensitive nature. A somewhat more common process is for the board to give an item an initial review as a “first briefing” and then, at a subsequent meeting, vote on it as a “second briefing” item.

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing

Trustee Simone Lightfoot argued that the public should have a chance to give feedback on the ratification of administrative contracts before they are approved. So she made a motion to change the administrative contract ratification agenda item from a special briefing to a first briefing item. That meant it would be discussed at the Dec. 14 meeting, but would then return to the board for a second briefing and vote at its next regular meeting.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked superintendent Patricia Green if there was anything time-sensitive about the contracts that would make it problematic to postpone a vote on them. Green responded that she was concerned about waiting any longer to ratify the contracts for Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent of instruction, and Dawn Linden, assistant superintendent of elementary education, who were hired on Sept. 1 and Oct. 18, respectively.

Agenda Approval: Board Policy on Contract Ratification

Green explained her impetus for bringing the four contracts to the board for review. She reported that when she was in the process of extending offers to Flye and Linden, who were hired to fill vacancies due to retirements, she thought she had the authority to offer contracts to administrators without board approval. As such, Green explained, contracts for Flye and Linden were signed by Green and board president Deb Mexicotte without coming before the board.

Green stated that it wasn’t until she started to do research on contracts for Comsa and Allen, in order to bring them forward for possible amendment, that she found “deeply embedded” in board policy 2120 – Superintendent Contracting Authority – that cabinet-level employment contracts require board approval. Though it had not been established practice to do so, Green consulted Comsa, who counseled that indeed Green should present the contracts to the board for ratification.

Agenda Approval: Discussion on Board Policy 2120

Lightfoot asked what sort of predicament the board would be in if trustees voted down contracts for Flye and Linden, even though they had already been signed. Green responded that, though the contracts should have been brought to the board first, they were signed in good faith and the district should honor them.

Lightfoot expressed frustration that the board was being asked to ratify contracts “after the fact.” Mexicotte and trustee Susan Baskett each stated that they remembered administrative contracts coming before the board in years past, but that this practice had become out of compliance with board policy in recent years.

Green pointed out that she was trying to change past practice to comply with board policy and asserted, “The buck does stop with me.”

Lightfoot thanked Green for highlighting where the district needs to improve. Thomas also thanked Green for rectifying the policy variance and increasing the district’s transparency on this issue.

Trustee Glenn Nelson commented that the governance group of the seven trustees and the superintendent need to help each other out if any of them notices inconsistent application of board policies, and he acknowledged “sharing the responsibility for this procedural snafu.”

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing – Discussion

Based on Green’s explanation, Thomas requested that Lightfoot (and Baskett, who had seconded her motion) consider a friendly amendment to split the administrative contract ratification agenda item into two parts – retaining the discussion and approval of contracts for Flye and Linden as a special briefing, but moving discussion of contracts for Comsa and Allen to first briefing.

After some additional clarification, Lightfoot and Baskett agreed to the friendly amendment suggested by Thomas.

Baskett asked when the second briefing and vote would take place, because the next board meeting – on Jan. 18, 2012 – is its annual organizational meeting, when board officers and committee appointments are set, and the board reviews its processes and procedures. Mexicotte answered that the organizational meeting is not usually for doing work, but noted that because it now occurs in the middle of the school year [it was previously held over the summer, when board elections were held in May], perhaps the board will need to take up some of its regular work at that meeting as well.

Baskett then echoed Lightfoot’s concern that putting the contract ratifications on the board agenda as a special briefing was “not fair to the community,” especially in light of how the district “[has] been preaching to the community that we are resource-constrained.”

Thomas called the question on Lightfoot’s motion to a vote, and Christine Stead seconded. The parliamentary move of calling the question is intended to end debate and force a vote on the item.

Outcome on calling the question: The roll call vote on whether to close discussion on Lightfoot’s motion passed 5-2, with Mexicotte and Patalan dissenting.

Outcome on main item: The roll call vote on Lightfoot’s motion, as amended, to shift the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen from special briefing to first briefing passed 4-3, with Baskett, Lightfoot, Mexicotte, and Thomas voting yes, and Nelson, Patalan and Stead dissenting.

First Briefing: Current Administrators

Green opened the discussion of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen by reminding the board that after taking the job as superintendent, she had wanted to spend some time assessing AAPS operations and organization before making any changes, and she had said she “did not want to make change just for change’s sake.” Saying she would not be bringing forward the contract amendments without reason, Green then outlined her rationale for the proposed changes.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Green’s Rationale

Green began by explaining her thoughts behind suggesting the reclassification of Comsa’s position from assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services to deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel, saying that the title shift would allow AAPS to use Comsa to attract revenue in the future. Green suggested, “The WISD [Washtenaw Intermediate School District] might want to use Mr. Comsa … There are [also] some smaller districts that do not have the kind of resources we have here.”

Green also said she has been very impressed with the legal services Comsa provides to the district. “There are very few folks of his stature in the entire state,” she asserted. “He is very marketable and could very easily be marketed right out of AAPS.” Green argued that, in her review of Comsa’s work, she could see that he has saved the district at least $500,000 a year in legal fees, and gave two examples.

Just this week, Green said, Comsa saved the district $55,000 “by reviewing some billings and saying ‘we don’t think this is appropriate.’” She also noted that AAPS recently fielded an Office of Civil Rights complaint [regarding the effect of athletics budget reductions on Title IX requirements], and that Comsa was able to get it dismissed by providing excellent leadership during the review process. “If it had not been dismissed, the legal fees could have continued to multiply,” she asserted. “The risk management function is something very significant. This is something we should not take lightly.”

In terms of her proposed raise for Comsa, which would take him from $124,542 to $140,000, Green argued that there was precedence in the district for having the head of human resources be a deputy-level position, and for all three deputies having the same compensation package. Finally, she offered some comparable salary ranges for the board to consider: Wayne-Westland is paying over $160,000; Warren and Utica are each paying over $140,000; and Troy is paying $151,900. Green noted that if Comsa chose to leave the district, the district would not be able to attract a good replacement without significantly raising the compensation level.

Regarding Allen’s proposed contract amendment, which took his salary from $130,556 to $140,000, Green said he has worked closely with her to make the Medicaid reimbursement happen. [This will be discussed further in Part 2 of this meeting report. In brief, Green’s comment refers to $1.4 million in AAPS special education reimbursements currently being held by the WISD that Green is working to get returned to AAPS.] Green also noted that Allen worked diligently to be certain AAPS qualified for best practices incentives offered by the state of Michigan. Finally, she reiterated that the three deputy superintendent positions should be at the same compensation level.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Board Discussion

Thomas said he was torn about this issue. On one hand, he noted, his previous professional experience as a chief administrative officer of a large medical practice makes him sensitive to the fact that salaries should keep pace with market conditions. He argued that Allen had done an admirable job taking the lead on high-profile, high-controversy issues, and that Comsa has also been an exceptional leader behind-the-scenes. In this vein, Thomas said, “Frankly, I think both of them without question deserve a salary increase.”

However, Thomas said, the district has a lot of good people – including principals, teachers, paraprofessionals and others – who have not received pay raises. “I am very concerned about the message we are sending to our rank and file that we recognize inequities among cabinet and will rectify them, but not the rank-and-file salaries.” Thomas said he recognizes that the money in this situation is “a drop in the bucket,” but argued that it does “move the needle in the wrong direction” while the district grapples with another $14 million in budget reductions.

Finally, Thomas said he feels a little better about approving a salary increase in Comsa’s position because it would be based in part on a reclassification of his position. He asked Green if her rationale for raising Allen’s salary was primarily to equalize salaries among administrators of the same rank. Green answered that it’s possible that Allen could be used to consult with other districts in the future too, but that is not part of what she is proposing currently.

Stead asserted that the salary increases being proposed for Allen and Comsa are small relative to the savings they have brought, and will continue to bring the district. She reminded her colleagues that in the past five years alone, AAPS has had to cut $50 million out of its budget, and that Allen and Comsa have done that work. She also pointed out that former superintendent Todd Roberts left AAPS to manage a much smaller group of students for significantly more pay. She argued that the district especially needs good leaders during these times when the state is not valuing education.

Patalan said she is willing to support an excellent team, and noted that Green is using her experience to bring new ideas to the district and look at things differently.

Nelson said Comsa and Allen have performed admirably under very stressful conditions. Like Patalan, Nelson pointed out that Green’s fresh perspective confirms that these are really excellent, important people to the district. Saying he supports Green’s recommended contract amendments in part because of the stresses the district is under, Nelson noted that Allen and Comsa will be with the district longer than any short-term pushback from the community.

Lightfoot asked whether Green was aiming to give all cabinet members parity in compensation, and Green answered, no, just the deputies. Lightfoot then argued that AAPS cannot be compared to other places because it has other amenities. She also suggested tying Comsa’s salary to a percentage of whatever he brings to the district in terms of additional revenue, instead of giving him a raise preemptively. Green countered that Comsa has already saved the district $500,000 in legal fees.

Baskett said that AAPS cannot compete on price, but offers employees a great quality of life. She said she has a concern about bringing all the deputies up to the $140,000 level at which Flye was hired. Baskett asserted that new employees coming in will always “negotiate high,” and argued that the district should not continually ask to realign top salaries every time someone leaves and a new person comes in. Finally, Baskett noted that the district has communicated to the community the need to sacrifice everywhere, and that the board needs to be cautious about proceeding with these proposed raises.

Mexicotte simply noted, “At this time I am in support of these amended administrative contracts as presented by [Green].”

Outcome: Votes are not taken on first briefing items. So as a first briefing item, these proposed contract amendments would usually have been brought back for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting. However, later in the Dec. 14 meeting, the items were eventually returned to special briefing status and approved.

Special Briefing: New Administrators

After holding the first briefing on proposed amendments to contracts for Comsa and Allen, board members returned to the discussion they had begun during the agenda approval, and discussed the ratification of the two new administrative contracts the district recently signed.

Deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye was extended an annual contract for $140,000 on Sept. 1, 2011, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden was extended an annual contract for $117,900 on Oct. 18, 2011. Both contracts were signed by Green and Mexicotte, but not brought before the board as required in board policy 2120.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – What Is a Raise?

Lightfoot contended that giving $140,000 to Flye when that is more than the salary of her predecessor was essentially giving Flye a raise before she had even started working for the district. [Former interim deputy superintendent of instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley’s salary was set at $132,000.]

Green countered that it’s not considered a raise for an individual who hasn’t been here. She argued that the market is such that if AAPS paid less than that, they would not be able to get a “top quality” person, and pointed out that the range for Flye’s position goes up to $169,000 in comparable districts.

Lightfoot asserted that there is no shortage of people wanting to work for AAPS. In response, Mexicotte and Green pointed out that the Flye did not accept the first offer made by AAPS, but negotiated a higher salary before accepting the position.

Nelson thanked Flye and Linden for bringing their “considerable talents” to the district.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – Incentive Compensation

Baskett asked for clarification about the “incentive compensation” section of the contracts being considered. [.pdf of contracts. See section 9 of Appendix 1 – Fringe Benefits within each contract.] Incentive pay is offered to top administrators based on the percentage of their performance objectives they reach each year. On top of their regular salaries, they are paid an additional $4,500 for reaching 100% of their performance objectives; $4,000 for reaching more than 90% but less than 100% of their performance objectives; and $3,500 for reaching more than 80% but less than 90% of their performance objectives.

“Is this consistent with other contracts?” Baskett asked Green. “How did you come up with these numbers?”

Green answered that the incentive compensation section is a standard part of AAPS contracts. Comsa clarified that incentive compensation was only offered to employees in Class 1, which consists of Green, the deputy superintendents, the assistant superintendents, and the executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent.

Baskett clarified that the district had budgeted for the high end of the salary range for each individual, so that in case the highest level of incentive pay is reached, it will not cause a deficit. Allen confirmed this is the case.

Lightfoot said she was “challenged by the standard practice” of offering incentive pay to staff who are already highly paid, while the district continues to cut services and raise class sizes. “This type of contract is not sensitive to current realities,” she argued, but clarified, “This is not a slight against the individuals in these positions.”

Nelson asserted that excellent people make an enormous difference in an organization, and that AAPS needs that kind of excellent leadership. He noted that salaries for comparable positions at the University of Michigan are higher, and said that if he had any doubt, it was whether AAPS was offering high enough salaries to the kind of excellent people it has in these positions.

Thomas noted that it would not be fair or appropriate to eliminate the incentive pay section of the contracts without raising the base salaries of the people currently in those positions, since they took their jobs with the expectation of being able to earn that additional money.

Baskett questioned how much AAPS has paid out in incentive pay over the last year, and Mexicotte suggested that could be answered outside the context of the contract question.

Outcome: The ratification of AAPS administrative contracts with deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden were removed from the consent agenda, and approved by a 6-1 vote, with trustee Lightfoot dissenting.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration

After the approval of the consent agenda, but before the board action items, Mexicotte made a motion to reconsider the decision the board had already made to treat the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen as a first briefing item instead of a special briefing item. Her intent was to then bring the contracts to a vote that night, which is possible for special briefing items.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration – First or Special Briefing?

Mexicotte noted that she had voted in favor of Lightfoot’s original motion to change this item from a special briefing to a first briefing item, so she was entitled to make a motion to reconsider the board’s decision on this issue – she had voted with the prevailing side. [Only someone who votes with the prevailing side is allowed to move for reconsideration.]

Nelson seconded Mexicotte’s motion, and the board engaged in a heated discussion about the issue.

Lightfoot argued that this “comes across as a ‘bait and switch’ to me,” and told Mexicotte she was “disappointed that you have opted to maneuver in this manner.”

Thomas noted the time [1:38 a.m.], said he was “a little on the frazzled side” himself, and said he did not believe that moving forward on this proposal at this time would be in anyone’s best interest.

Nelson disagreed, saying he did not sense that there would be any movement around the table on this issue, and that the board might as well vote now “because we’ve got two excellent people who shall receive the word on how this is going to be resolved.”

Patalan added that she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact and that this time it would be no different.

Baskett argued, “I don’t think this is the best move. Perception says a lot. People will question why we waited until almost 2 a.m. to do this. I don’t get a sense of the timeliness of this. I don’t think these two employees are going to leave us any time soon.”

Lightfoot said she wanted to make a last-ditch effort to her colleagues to “walk the talk … We tell people we want them involved and that we care and then pull this at almost 2 in the morning. This is about knowing we are not doing the right thing or we wouldn’t be doing it at 1:45 in the morning.”

Mexicotte noted that this item came late to the Dec 14 agenda, and that many of the other agenda items also required a great deal of time to discuss as well. She then responded to a number of her colleagues comments.

Saying she was a trustee of the district, Mexicotte noted that she values input, but has also been elected to make judgments on any number of things – including contracts. “People expect that I’m going to try to do the right thing,” she said, “I feel pretty strongly about this being the right thing.” She argued that she was acting in the best interest of the district by supporting Green’s recommendation and that her belief was due in part to what she knows of Comsa’s and Allen’s work in the district, how much money they have found and saved for AAPS, and about the stability and excellence required in the district.

She countered Thomas’ earlier assertion that raising salaries for Comsa and Allen “moves the needle in the wrong direction,” saying that even though these are difficult economic times, the district still needs to figure out how to cut $14 million while doing right by their employees. She said she does not support cutting other employee salaries.

Finally, Mexicotte took issue with the suggestion that this action should not be taken because of what it might mean to the community symbolically. “We have a lot of hard decisions to make, and we have to galvanize the community about what’s important, not just what seems symbolically important – our funding model, the retirement rate, that students and teachers are starting to feel the squeeze – what we get so caught up in are these proxy fights.”

Saying she “bristle[d] at the suggestion” that this was any sort of maneuvering on her part, Mexicotte said simply that she had voted earlier, and then reconsidered as she thought about it throughout the meeting.

Outcome: The motion to reconsider the board’s earlier vote passed 4-3, with Nelson, Stead, Patalan, and Mexicotte voting yes, and Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting. When the board reconsidered its earlier decision, the outcome mirrored the vote on reconsideration – the board voted 4-3 (with Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting) to take up the contracts for the two current administrators, Comsa and Allen, as a special briefing action item.

Contract Administrators: Reconsideration – Board Action

After addressing one other piece of business, the board returned for a final time to its discussion on contract amendments for Comsa and Allen – this time as an action item.

Thomas repeated that he felt more comfortable raising Comsa’s salary because his job responsibilities will be increasing. Thomas felt it was less compelling to give Allen a raise to achieve compensation parity among the deputy superintendents.

Lightfoot asserted that she was “quite convinced” that this is not in the best interest of the district. “I think holy heck is going to be raised about the way this has been done, and this will get in the way of the tech bond … We’ve pulled the ‘okie doke’ on this one. It’s bigger than the politics … This is not acceptable to me.”

Nelson said he wanted to encourage his colleagues to use “I statements,” and then argued that he was supporting Green’s recommendations because it’s the best thing for the children and young people of Ann Arbor. He added, “I hope people listen to my ‘I statements’ rather than other statements about me.”

Patalan said she absolutely thought this was the best thing to do for the school district, and that she believed in Green’s vision and experience.

Stead said she also thought it’s the best thing to do for AAPS. She argued that the risk of losing the leadership of Comsa and Allen as the district tries to cut 8% of its budget is a bigger risk than any other cut that needs to be made in terms of balance.

Mexicotte said she voted the way she did early in the meeting so she could think about it, and then she did think about it, and brought a different motion. She said she looked forward to a very robust discussion about board process at the organizational meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

Outcome: The approval of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen passed 4-3 with Stead, Patalan, Mexicotte, and Nelson voting yes, and Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett dissenting. The contract amendments reclassify Comsa as a deputy superintendent, and bring salaries for both Comsa and Allen in line with Flye’s at $140,000.

[This was Part 1 of the Dec. 14, 2011 meeting report. Part 2 of the meeting report is forthcoming.]

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson and Christine Stead.

Next regular meeting/annual organizational meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. 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!

A sign directing voters at Angell Elementary School, where two precincts for Ann Arbor's Ward 2 are located. As of 7:05 a.m., five voters had arrived. It's unlikely the one-voter-per-minute pace will continue, but poll workers expect a higher turnout than the 68 people who voted here in the August primary.

If you’re still researching the candidates for the school board or for the city council, check out Chronicle coverage of the candidate forums.

City of Ann Arbor voters will also be presented with three ballot proposals, two of them involving approval of taxes for street and sidewalk repair. Proposal 1 would renew an existing street repair property tax at a rate of 2 mills. [A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property's taxable value.] Assuming Proposal 1 is approved, Proposal 2 would levy an additional 0.125 mills – for sidewalk repair. If Proposal 2 is approved by voters, the city would not start a new 5-year inspection cycle. Under that inspection program, property owners are formally notified that sidewalks adjacent to their property need repair and then must undertake those repairs themselves.

Attitudes of city council challengers towards the sidewalk millage are negative. Some current city councilmembers have offered only reluctant support for the sidewalk millage or else have a complete lack of a position on the question. Mayor John Hieftje, who is not up for re-election this year, has clearly stated his lack of a position on the sidewalk millage.

Proposal 3 is less controversial, enjoying solid support among councilmembers and challengers. It would change the makeup of the retirement system’s board of trustees so that fewer beneficiaries of the system are included on the board.

Polls are open today from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. A good place to get partial unofficial results (that are as close to official as you can get) is the Washtenaw County clerk’s office election results website.

To find your polling place, type in an address on the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website, and click on the Voter tab.

The Chronicle has established somewhat of an Election Day tradition: We tour as many precinct locations as we can through the day and file mini-reports from the polls. So we’re off – check back throughout the day for updates, appended after the jump. Add your own observations from the polls in the comments.

7:35 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 3 (Tappan Middle School, 2251 E. Stadium Blvd.): So far 12 voters have passed through – including two who were waiting outside when the polls opened at 7 a.m. That’s a brisker pace than the August primary, which averaged about 15 voters per hour, according to the precinct chair. But now, there’s only one voter in the school cafeteria, where the polling place is located. She was allowed to bring in her dog, since there was no one else around to possibly disturb. The dog, Kiley, seemed somewhat disinterested in exercising its democratic rights.

8:07 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 3 (Community High School, 401 N. Division): Among the other standard signs planted in the lawn is a handwritten campaign sign for Larry Murphy, in child’s handwriting. It invites people to “Vote for my dad.” Claire Dahl, precinct captain, says that voting in person is “good for your soul.” Two people have voted so far. A third arrives. Small talk among poll workers includes weather (“Is it still raining outside?”) and the merits of lining baking pans with parchment paper versus aluminum foil.

8:15 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 4 & Ward 3 Precinct 7 (Allen School, 2560 Towner Blvd.): Continuing a trend spotted at Tappan, a voter brought his dog along to the polls – Daphne is watching other voters enter the school as her owner reviews a sample ballot before going in to cast his vote. About three dozen voters have showed up during the first hour – one of the more recent voters to pass through is former city councilmember Leigh Greden.

8:37 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 9 (Thurston School, 2300 Prairie St.): Sign in the elementary school hallway leading to cafeteria, where polls are set up, admonishes that directions given by adults are to be followed the first time they’re given. Voter nearly leaves without receiving “I Voted” sticker. As the 8:45 bell goes off (wonder if that’s recess already?) 50 voters have cast their ballots here. Standard election inspector joke: “You can vote at any booth you like, except one that someone’s already standing in.” Election inspectors experiment with turning off the lights to save energy, but decide that it leaves things too dim for voters to read their ballots.

8:40 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 5 (St. Clare Church/Temple Beth Emeth 2309 Packard St.): No voters are here – it’s been slow, poll workers say, with 21 voters so far. They expect it will pick up later in the day, when people get off work. One worker points out that this precinct, which includes a stretch of South Industrial, covers a large section that’s not residential. To kill time, one poll worker is knitting a scarf. “It’s boring,” she says, describing the relative challenge of her handiwork. The same description likely applies to the roughly 11 hours left until polls close at 8 p.m., unless turnout improves.

9:19 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 9 & Ward 2, Precinct 6 (Clague Middle School, 2616 Nixon Rd.): Before leaving Thurston, overheard arriving voter say he’d initially gone to the wrong precinct – Clague Middle School, which is just behind the street where he lives. On Praire Street, between Thurston and Clague, about a dozen signs for Rapundalo, zero for Lumm. Not surprising, given that it’s Rapundalo’s home turf. Woman with dog responds to query about whether it’s registered to vote with a deadpan: “No. But she is very interested in sidewalks.” The woman departed before it was properly parsed as a joke (which it clearly was … sidewalk repair millage …). At this combined precinct location, 122 people have voted so far.

A tow truck driver hooks up an illegally parked car in front of the Mary Street polling place in Ann Arbor. Three spaces are reserved for voters on election day, and three cars parked in those spots had been ticketed after receiving warning notices over the past few days.

9:35 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 2 (Mary St. Polling Place, 926 Mary St.): Two tow trucks are on site – three cars have been parked in the spaces reserved for voters in front of this polling location. Multiple warning notices over the past few days are evidenced by soggy green, yellow and red flyers stuck under the vehicles’ windshield wipers. One young woman walks up just as the tow truck driver has hooked up her Jeep. She gets her vehicle, but has to pay the ticket and a hook-up charge – still, it’s less than the impoundment fee. There’s far less action inside the polling station, where three people had voted so far out of the 840 registered voters in this precinct. The place smells like bleach. Normally it’s used by the Bird Center of Washtenaw County, and is scrubbed down by the center’s volunteers before election day. This small building is the only remaining city polling place that’s still in use for its original purpose.

10:04 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 8 (St. Paul’s Lutheran School, 495 Earhart Rd.): Retracing route along Prairie Street southward from Clague, two Lumm signs spotted – how were they missed on the way north? Here at St. Paul’s, Ren Farley invites a voter to “feed the monster” – insert the ballot into the machine. So far, there have been 76 voters.

10:29 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 7 (King School, 3800 Waldenwood Ln): So far 84 people have voted. Election inspector volunteers that there are 2,260 registered voters in his precinct – she’d looked it up for someone earlier, not that she carries that information around in her head. Signs are being added inside the school building for people who wander in through an entrance that was anticipated to be locked. Child care that’s being offered resulted in that door being unlocked. Poll worker comments on the durability of his phone, which will stand up to being dropped off a roof.

11:04 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 1 (Northwood Community Center, Family Housing, 1000 McIntyre Dr.): Discussion between pair of young people in the lounge outside the smallish voting room centers on the rules for Twister. Are there teams? How many can play at a time? Will people naturally laugh while playing? Inside the voting room, nobody is playing Twister. So far 37 people have voted.

11:45 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 5 (Ann Arbor Assembly of God, 2455 Washtenaw Ave.): Minor confusion between mother and son. Responding to him, she insists it doesn’t smell bad in the precinct. He explains that he’d said something about “voting” here, not that it’s “moldy” here. Business is brisk right now. So far 172 people have voted. Woman arrives with three kids and a dog. The canine Coco sits properly and is well behaved. Qualifications for voting are explained to the kids as “you have to be a grownup.” No one takes advantage of that opening to make a joke. Kids all receive stickers. Time it took to vote from start to finish was under five minutes.

1:20 p.m. Ward 1, Precincts 1 & 2 and Ward 4, Precinct 1 (Michigan Union, 530 S. State St.): These two polling stations are by far the best smelling – scent of flavored coffee from Amer’s in the lobby, and warm meat from The University Club. Out of 1,286 registered voters, one person has showed up so far for Ward 4, Precinct 1. Around the corner and down the hall in another room, the combined precincts of Ward 1 have by comparison been super busy – with 13 voters, out of around 4,000 registered. Poll workers note that most students don’t ask to be removed from the registered voter lists after graduating and leaving town.

1:23 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 1 (Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.): Arriving at the bicycle racks, Newcombe Clark – an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member and Ward 5 independent council candidate one year ago – is spotted. He and a colleague from MyBuys are the 19th and 20th voters at the library. The 21st voter is inside the polling station, which is on the bottom floor of the building. Adorning the walls are pieces from the Michigan Quilt Artist Invitational Exhibit, which runs from through Nov. 29. One of the quilted pieces of art includes this saying: “Wear pearls with your apron, you’re dressed up enough.” Poll workers are organizing their staggered lunch breaks.

Cherry Westerman outside the UM Coliseum polling station.

1:45 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 6 (Eberwhite School, 800 Soule Blvd.): A minor glitch in the voting booth – the pen doesn’t work. Solution was easy – to remove the cap. So far 97 people have voted. Poll workers characterize that tally as “slow.” Small talk among the poll workers includes a side-by-side comparison of travel coffee mug technology. Also: thermostat settings. A strategy by one worker of 65 F during the day and 58 F at night is rejected by another as “too cold.” As temperatures outside the school approach the mid 60s, it’s now slightly cooler inside the gym.

2:10 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 3 (UM Coliseum, Fifth Ave. & Hill St.):  Unlike the August 2010 primary, this polling station is no longer sweltering inside. Poll workers report they’ve had 91 voters, but very few students.

Outside, Cherry Westerman is collecting signatures for a petition drive – the effort is to force a referendum election to repeal Michigan Public Act 4 of 2011, better known as the emergency fund manager act. If successful, it would put the issue on the November 2012 ballot for voters to decide. She’s collected 16 signatures in the 2.5 hours she’s been outside the polling station, which she figures is a fairly high percentage of the voters who’ve passed through. Westerman is a retired teacher – her husband is the first cousin of Scott Westerman, former superintendent for the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

2:50 p.m. Ward 4, Precincts 4 & 8 (Pioneer High School, 601 W. Stadium Blvd.): About 220 people from two Ward 4 precincts have voted in the small gym at Pioneer – a poll worker describes the pace as steady. She still has time for a crossword puzzle, though – she says it’s easier to be interrupted from that than from reading a book. The six doors that serve as entrances to the gym have different words etched in frosted glass above each door. The word over the door that’s open is “team.”

David Zinn sidewalk art.

5:25 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 2 (Bach School, 600 W. Jefferson St.): It’s dusk. A guy is taking photographs of something on the sidewalk, just outside the entrance to the school. That “something” turns out to be sidewalk chalk art, and the “guy” is David Zinn, whose work has been noted previously in The Chronicle.

He hopes to use the photos for his Christmas card, and was working against the threat of rain. Missed an obvious opportunity to ask him what he thought about the sidewalk millage. Inside, the line is four voters deep – about 230 people had come through so far, out of about 2,600 registered voters.

5:50 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 4 & Ward 5, Precinct 5 (Slauson Middle School, 1019 W. Washington): The school parking lot is packed, but it turns out there’s another event going on – not all these vehicles are carrying voters. Inside, the polling station with combined precincts has logged over 525 voters today – a precinct chair estimates that’s about 15-20% of registered voters.

However, she cautions that the percentage is difficult to estimate, because a certain number of registered voters no longer live in this area but are still in the books. The day is winding down as it began, with sprinkling of rain.

That’s it from the polls for today, which are open until 8 p.m. If we have any results to share before they’re posted to the Washtenaw County clerk’s office election results website, we’ll make them available on our Civic News Ticker.

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!

The board currently maintains two standing committees – a planning committee and a performance committee – through which most new agenda items are vetted and recommendations are crafted for board approval. Agendas for regular board meetings are then set by an executive committee made up of the standing committee chairs and the board president.

By meeting as a “committee of the whole,” all seven trustees would receive new information and review proposals as a group. They would discuss together which items to include on the regular meeting agenda, with the ultimate decision resting with the president and the superintendent.

No decision on the new committee structure was made on Friday, but the board agreed to place the question of committee restructuring on the agenda of its next regular meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 26.

Also at the Oct. 14 retreat, the board reaffirmed its commitment to the district’s strategic plan. Board members also discussed several other items: moving to a paperless system for board documents; providing livestreaming or online video-on-demand coverage of their regular meetings; and creating a common calendar for administrative reports to the board.

Voters will choose up to two from the field of candidates, and the top two vote-getters will take seats on the board.

Thomas, along with two other prospective candidates – Larry Murphy and Ahmar Iqbal – attended the informational meeting. The deadline to file an intention with the Washtenaw County clerk’s office to run for a school board seat is Aug.16 at 4 p.m.

In response to questions from Murphy, Iqbal, and Thomas, longtime board members Deb Mexicotte, Glenn Nelson, and Susan Baskett reflected on several topics: the campaigning and election processes; closing schools; the recent dearth of candidates in local school board elections; dealing with displeased constituents; the time commitment involved in serving as a trustee; the role of board members; skills needed on the board; the use of outside consultants; and countywide enhancement millage campaigning.

Prospective Challengers

Larry Murphy has two children in the district, and expressed his interest in applying the knowledge he has gained as a small business owner to the school budget crisis. His previous experience includes serving on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board in the 1990s.

Ahmar Iqbal

Ahmar Iqbal is the CEO of a green energy consulting firm, and has a background in public finance, including experience at the World Bank.

Iqbal explained that his family has recently returned from years spent abroad to settle in Ann Arbor, and that his children had just completed sixth and ninth grades in the district.

Then Iqbal offered a candid critique, saying he “had not figured out why Ann Arbor Public Schools are so highly regarded.” Thus, he said, he was interested in being more involved.

Attending the information session does not in any way obligate someone to become a school board candidate. Although Murphy and Iqbal each said they are considering an election run, neither has declared a candidacy yet.

Both thanked the board members, as well as Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, and Teri Williams, election coordinator for AAPS, for offering them an opportunity to ask questions.

Mexicotte encouraged Murphy and Iqbal to get involved in the schools regardless of their decision about running for the board.

Campaign and Election Processes

Teri Williams, election coordinator for AAPS, reviewed the requirements for getting on the ballot, which include filing either a nominating petition with at least 40 signatures, or paying a $100 fee.

She cautioned the potential candidates to be sure that signatures are collected on the proper petitions – AAPS serves the city of Ann Arbor as well as parts of eight surrounding townships, and a separate petition is required for each municipality. Williams suggested trying to get at least 50 signatures in case some are invalidated.

Thomas, who was elected last year and holds the shortest tenure as a trustee among current board members, said he would welcome Murphy and Iqbal to the race. He said it’s in the best interest of the community to have contested elections.

Thomas asked whether or not the title “incumbent” would accompany his name on the ballet, and Williams explained that neither a candidate’s status as an incumbent nor political affiliation would be included on the ballot. She also added that the names are placed in random order on the ballot in each precinct, not alphabetically.

Iqbal asked how the number of seats on a ballot is determined each year, and how board officer positions are chosen among board members. Mexicotte explained that one or two seats open up each year, generally for four-year terms, unless the vacancies are due to board members leaving mid-term. She also explained that each January the board holds an organizational meeting to choose its officers, and that the process is generally not contentious.

Closing Schools

Murphy asked whether the board had considered consolidating schools or closing buildings in light of the current financial constraints, and Nelson said yes, that was a “somewhat active discussion.”

Larry Murphy

Murphy suggested that consolidating two of the district’s alternative high schools – Stone and Clemente – could lead to significant savings. Mexicotte said that closing buildings does not lead to as much savings as people often assume, because the bulk of district costs are in personnel. The same number of children still need to be taught, even if they are moved into fewer buildings.

Margolis added that, rather than closing buildings, the district’s focus has been on trying to fill any buildings not at capacity by offering schools of choice to Washtenaw County residents. She also explained that the district owns all of its buildings, so consolidating schools would leave buildings unused unless rented out; the most probable renters, she continued, would be charter schools in direct competition with AAPS for students.

Mexicotte also noted that Clemente has a unique set-up, and was purpose-built for the population it serves. Baskett suggested that Murphy visit Clemente, Stone, and other AAPS schools in order to understand better the politics around closing schools, and the ownership that each school community feels toward its building.

Recent Dearth of Candidates in Local School Board Elections

Iqbal asked for trustees’ thoughts on why there had been so few candidates in recent board elections. Nelson pointed out that this has not always been the case. But according to data from the Washtenaw County elections division website, all school board elections in the past five years have been either uncontested or included no more than two contenders for one position. The years 2002-2005 had higher numbers of candidates on average, which Nelson attributed to significant disagreement in the community about how to govern the district.

Board members weighed in about why the interest in serving on the board has waned since 2005. Mexicotte said she would like to think it’s a sign of community support for the work of the recent and current board members, who came onto the board to “restore civility and integrity” after those difficult years.

To explain the lack of interest in the community for contesting school board elections, Nelson and Baskett instead focused on the difficulty of being on the board. Noting that trustees are “dealing with people’s money and their children,” Baskett called serving on the school board “the toughest job in politics.” Nelson agreed, saying many people saw the job of school board trustee as “thankless.”

Dealing with Displeased Constituents

Iqbal asked how trustees dealt with not pleasing everyone, and board members said it was a challenge, especially when the displeased constituent is your best friend or even your spouse.

Baskett suggested that you have to be able to “hang your hat” on the belief that you made a decision in the best interest of the children. Mexicotte added that board members needed to have “a certainty of self, and a strong inner core.”

Time Commitment to Serve as a Trustee

Mexicotte explained that service on the board of trustees generally averages about 8-10 hours of work per week, but that some trustees attend school events multiple times a week. Nelson added there are usually two board meetings and two committee meetings each month, and that trustees need to be able to commit time to prepare for those meetings.

Thomas, who is currently the board secretary, added that he also spends a variable amount of time each week responding to all e-mails addressed to the board as a whole. Iqbal asked whether the board had staff to help them, and trustees explained that they had a full-time board secretary, Amy Osinski.

Role of Board Members

Nelson said he sees the board as an interface between the community and the schools, and noted that “it’s healthy for people to come onto the board through the campaign process,” since that process reflects the very social nature of being a board member. He gave multiple examples of being approached in public to discuss education issues.

Mexicotte agreed that successful candidates for the board are usually social people, given a board member’s role as liaison between the district and its constituents. She noted the challenge of being a very social person while carrying around a substantial amount of confidential information.

Trustees explained that only one employee reports to the board – the superintendent. Mexicotte said the job of the board is to give direction to the administration via the superintendent, and then let the professionals do their jobs.

Murphy said he would see himself as a trustee pushing the administration a bit more than that – to question the value added by various budget proposals, for example. Baskett agreed, saying that when she “does not get the sense that the homework has been done,” she gets concerned about being able to explain the district’s choices to the community. She sees her role, she said, as being sure the superintendent is fully informed of the community’s perspective.

Iqbal expressed frustration at not having access to the new superintendent, Patricia Green, whose first day in the district was Friday, July 1. He explained that he thought it was not right that he was told her schedule was not open to the public yet when he called to set up a meeting with her. He suggested that the board direct her to hold office hours at least monthly so parents could meet her. Trustees reported that in September, the district will host a reception to welcome Green.

Skills Needed on the Board vs. the Use of Outside Consultants

Iqbal asked what skills a successful candidate would need to round out the skill set already present on the board. Each of the trustees offered a different opinion.

Nelson said political skills were needed – that the new trustee should be someone who would be able to generate support for a countywide enhancement millage. Baskett disagreed, saying that the current board had political expertise, but needed more diversity. “With more diversity,” she said, “we can reach out to more people.” Mexicotte said the most important quality in a trustee is the ability to work on a team.

Iqbal asked why some of the enhancement millage campaign work could not be done by hiring an outside consultant, and Nelson explained that advocacy work cannot be done with taxpayer funds. Iqbal applauded the use of a consultant to conduct the superintendent search, and suggested the board evaluate itself in order to determine its weaknesses. Outside consultants might then be brought in to mitigate those weaknesses, he suggested.

Iqbal asked what resources the board has to conduct research, and Mexicotte answered that the board has a budget of roughly $60,000 for meals at board meetings, travel, conferences, etc, as well as a separate budget for legal expenses. She noted that the board can also direct any of the resources of the district as a whole to meet its needs.

Countywide Enhancement Millage

Iqbal and Murphy questioned the need for an enhancement millage to be countywide, and trustees explained that the only millages that could be enacted exclusively within the AAPS district are those that would fund capital improvements or facilities maintenance.

While acknowledging that Ann Arbor “enhances the standards of living” of those living in the rest of the county, Iqbal argued that AAPS was acting like a “political bully” if it campaigned for an enhancement millage countywide. Mexicotte responded by saying that if Iqbal were to serve on the board, he would see that “we don’t just call on our neighbors at election time.” She pointed to the district’s involvement with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), as well as other partnerships with other neighboring districts.

Next regular meeting: July 13, 2011, 7 p.m., at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees. 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!