In alphabetical order, the degrees will be awarded to:  Jose Antonio Abreu, a Venezuelan pianist and music educator;  Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon and CNN’s chief medical correspondent; investment banker J. Ira Harris, president of JI Harris & Associates; journalist and author Susan Orlean; Richard Sarns, biomedical entrepreneur and inventor; and author and illustrator Chris Van Allsburg.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Pendleton Room on UM’s Ann Arbor campus, where regents held their March meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The event also included national, regional, and local media organizations, who were eventually allowed into Michigan Stadium. But I don’t think most members of the media really listened to his address.

The online New York Times ran at least four different headlines for the Obama speech. In this collage of screen shots, from the upper left, going clockwise: (1) "At a Graduation, Obama Defends Government"; (2) "President's Plea to Graduates: Be Civil"; (3) "At a Graduation, Obama Urges Openness and Defends Government"; (4) "Obama Assails Antigovernment Rhetoric." (Image links to higher resolution file.)

For example, I didn’t see any of these headlines, which could have been attached to an accurate account of Obama’s speech:

Obama Lambastes Media for Sound-Byte Coverage

Obama Takes Aim at Media for Stoking Conflicts

Obama Puts Blame for Coarse Discourse on Media

Obama Erupts But Does Not Confirm Ties to Volcano

The fourth alternative is based on a kindergartner’s question to the president, which Obama reported as part of his speech. That one is admittedly a stretch. It’s included for the benefit of an audience of two, perhaps three, local Ann Arbor readers who might crack a smile when they read it. [For those of you who don't know, Ann Arbor is building a "volcano" in the center of its downtown.]

The other three, however, are legitimate candidates for a headline that summarizes what the president’s speech was “about.” The venerable New York Times tried out at least four different headlines for a single online story on the Obama speech. But none of the NYT alternatives – nor those of any other media coverage I saw – identified as a significant theme of Obama’s speech the culpability of the media in the kind of “over the top” public debates that Obama said “coarsens our culture.”

That’s because I don’t think media organizations were paying attention to all of Obama’s speech the way they would have if they’d approached it like they were cutting up fish.

Slicing, Serving Obama’s Speech

Here’s an outline of Obama’s speech, which The Chronicle overlaid on its annotated version  of his transcribed remarks:

I. Introduction

II. America’s Voices

A. How Obama Keeps in Touch

B. Kindergartners

C. Niceness

III. Contentious Discourse

A. Origins in Current Crisis

B. Historical Context

C. The Nature of American Politics

IV. How to Preserve Democracy

A. Adapt Role of Government to Changing World

B. Maintain Civility

C. Participate In It

V. Conclusion: Calling Graduates to Action

Obama’s speechwriters probably worked from a different outline. But those are some slices that I thought would allow readers to chew easily through the material of the speech. So that’s the way The Chronicle served up the president’s address. The Chronicle’s headline: “Obama’s Michigan Commencement Speech.”

The Chronicle thus served it up relatively raw, and uncooked over the flame of analysis of what Obama was using the occasion to do. In this regard we took an approach to the commencement coverage similar to the approach a sushi chef takes to serving fish. The skill of the chef is not in the cooking but in the cutting.

I first encountered this kind of analogy in a 1989 essay by Japanese biologist Tatsuo Motokawa: “Sushi Science and Hamburger Science.” In that essay, Motokawa applies the comparison of Eastern and Western cuisines to the practice of science, but I think it’s applicable to the presentation of news as well:

A lot of skills are hidden behind the no-cook. This is really an art, and definitely a different kind of art than that found in Western cooking. Some Western cuisines are great: we taste the skills of chefs. Sushi is also great: we taste the materials themselves.

So Motokawa isn’t arguing for the superiority of Eastern cuisine over Western cuisine. He was simply pointing out the specific ways they’re different. Extending the analogy to scientific cultures, he describes the difference this way:

Western science is hypothesis oriented. A hypothesis is a personal interpretation using words about how universal rule works in a particular matter of interest. The hypothesis should be big: the final rule should be one, and therefore the biggest and most general hypothesis is the best one. This drives the hypothesis to become abstract. [...]

Eastern science is fact oriented. It tries to communicate with the truth, not through generality and abstraction as Western science does, but through specificity and objectivity.

So in presenting the text of Obama’s speech – sliced into an outline and lightly garnished with annotations – we took an “Eastern” approach. It was centered on the actual words of the speech, left intact.

It wasn’t perfectly “intact” – that is, we didn’t teleport the physical being of Obama through computers to re-deliver the speech right in front of Chronicle readers – that would be like offering a live fish and asking readers to bite into it. And it would taste terrible, unless you are a grizzly bear.

What Obama’s Speech Was About

Based on the outline, Obama’s speech was a standard graduation speech in theme, and fairly unremarkable and workmanlike in its organizational structure. It can be seen as a longer version of the standard five-paragraph essay that most of UM’s graduating seniors learned to write four years ago – in whatever class corresponds to freshman composition. Obama certainly introduced the three sub-sections under “How to Preserve Democracy,” with a strategy straight out of freshman comp – simple enumeration: “First of all, …” “Now the second way …” and “Which brings me to the last …”

But what was the meat on those bones of an outline?

Focusing just on the fourth section, the one we labeled “How to Preserve Democracy,” Obama talked first about how one key to preserving our democracy is to allow the proper role of government to change to fit the needs of the time. Rhetorically, the strategy for that first point was to emphasize the role historically of Republican presidents in “big government” philosophies: Abraham Lincoln (intercontinental railroad, land-grant colleges), Teddy Roosevelt (national parks), Lyndon Johnson (Great Society), and Dwight Eisenhower (national highway system).

The second crucial ingredient Obama identified to preserve democracy was civil discourse. He called for the debate to center on a common set of facts and for the debate to be civil. And he called on graduates to seek out a diversity of opinion among the various choices in the media that are available to them.

And finally, Obama called on graduates to participate in public life. That was the section that concluded with the one passage from the speech that has a chance of enduring for the ages, the one that likely gave goosebumps to the staunchest Obama supporters:

What is certain, what has always been certain, is the ability to shape the destiny. That is what makes us different. That is what sets us apart. That is what makes us Americans. Our ability at the end of the day to look past all our differences and all of our disagreements, and still forge a common future.

So if we analyze the significance of that “How to Preserve Democracy” section and try to identify the one salient theme there that’s headline-worthy, the possibilities produced by the New York Times for the same online story are, I think, reasonable candidates:

1. At a Graduation, Obama Defends Government
2. President’s Plea to Graduates: Be Civil
3. At a Graduation, Obama Urges Openness and Defends Government
4. Obama Assails Antigovernment Rhetoric

But there was more than one section to the speech.

What the Speech Was Not About

I think it’s fair to conclude that what Obama wanted the speech to be about was the fourth section. One clue, I think, is the presentational strategy of “First of all, …” “Now the second way …” and “Which brings me to the last …”

So the fourth section is what the author of the text wanted the speech to be about. But why should we trust the author of the text to tell us what it’s about?

Maybe it was about something else, too. Was it about U.S. Senators beating the crap out of each other? Well, no, although in the section on “Contentious Discourse” Obama alluded to a physical attack by Congressman Preston Brooks on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856. That came in response to a speech that Sumner had delivered against the Fugitive Slave Act. The speech had insulted one of the authors of the act, Andrew Butler, who was a relative of Brooks.

Was the speech about volcanoes? Not really. In the section on “America’s Voices” one of the questions Obama reported receiving from a kindergartner was, Do you live next to a volcano? But that was there clearly for comedic effect – Obama himself seemed tickled enough that he paused to work through a chuckle.

What Else the Speech Was About

But in that same section with the volcanoes, Obama reported another question: Are people being nice? And Obama’s remarks on that question went like this:

The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story, which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible.

But that came right on the heals and in the same section clearly intended mostly to lighten the mood – it’s only kindergartners and their cute little funny questions, right? That’s not the “news” out of the speech, is it?

But the thread was continued in the meat-and-potatoes section that most the the media seemed to think the speech was about. Right there in the “Preserving Democracy Section”:

Today’s 24/7 echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.

So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude that Obama’s speech was also about the role of the free press in our democracy, and that the press in general might think a little more deeply about whether they’re “writing for the fight” or “writing for the right.”

In Defense of Occasional Journalistic Sushi

It’s certainly possible that I missed other journalists’ presentation of the media’s culpability in the coarsening of the public discourse as a significant theme of Obama’s speech.

If I did, then it’s likely because I was distracted by trying to practice the art of “journalistic sushi.” The hours after the president spoke I spent transcribing the speech as delivered and tracking down the various allusions in the speech that warranted some kind of annotation.

Part of the task of transcribing the actual speech would not, I’m fairly certain, seem very much like journalism to most conventional Western journalists. That’s the part where you determine whether the line I rendered as “Some of these letters tell stories …”  should have been transcribed instead as “Some of these st- letters tell stories.” Obama began with the hint of the /st/ for “stories,” saved it smoothly, and delivered “letters.”

It’s also the part where you determine whether to include the Obama trademark hesitation vocalization that seems to live somewhere in the glottal area and could be transcribed as “erm,” “ehh,” “aah” or the like. For Saturday’s speech that might have looked something like: “And so may I say, ehh, Go Blue!”

I opted against that, reasoning that most readers would be baffled.

I’m not suggesting that in general the “journalistic sushi” approach we used for coverage of the Obama commencement address is always the right call. In this case, the attention to detail gave enough time for reflection to include the annotated material as well as the in-line commentary.

But I’m content that someone who reads along might reasonably feel like a reader is supposed to feel when they read Chronicle material – as expressed in this publication’s tagline: “It’s like being there.”

U.S. President Barack Obama, flanked by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm on the left and University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman on the right.

University of Michigan students celebrate their graduation.

A University of Michigan student at the May 1 commencement.

Assorted footwear worn by University of Michigan students at graduation reflected the predicted thundershowers – which did dump a lot of water on the stadium in the early morning hours. But by the time commencement ceremonies began at 11 a.m., the severe weather was past.

The crowd at Michigan Stadium in rain ponchos.

Security staff overlooking Michigan Stadium during commencement.

The crowd at Michigan Stadium attending Saturday's graduation ceremonies. See anyone you know?

Not everyone in the crowd was an Obama supporter.

One of the large screens mounted at Michigan Stadium gave students a chance to see themselves live on TV.

Getting a good photo sometimes requires standing out in the crowd.

The broadcast booth for the Big Ten Network. Seated at right is Ken Fischer, president of the University Musical Society. Seated to the left is Huel Perkins, a Fox 2 News anchor.

Students did their best to snag photos of Obama.

Barack Obama, with his honorary doctoral hood stylishly askew.

On Sunday, see more commencement photos on Myra Klarman’s blog, Relish.

Word cloud analysis of the Obama UM commencement address. Image links to higher resolution file. Analysis done at http://www.wordle.net/

The Chronicle has transcribed the speech as delivered and provided some annotation, in part by providing section and sub-section headings that reflect the organizational structure of the president’s remarks.

The main themes were the role of government in our lives and the keys to preservation of democracy. One of those keys to the preservation of democracy, Obama told the graduates, is to “contribute part of your life to the life of this country.”

Introduction

[applause ~30 seconds] Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you, everybody, please be seated. I love you back! [responding to "I love you" from audience] It is great to be here in the Big House. [applause ~5 s.] And so may I say, Go Blue! [applause ~10 s.] I thought I would go for the cheap applause line to start things off.

[Note: Based on the text that the White House released of the speech to be delivered, the line was not impromptu, but could have been perceived as an ad lib, riffing on the fact that many of the speakers who preceded Obama at the podium went for the "Go Blue" applause line at the end of their speeches, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and student speaker Alex Marston.]

Good afternoon, President Coleman, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, parents, family and friends of the class of 2010. [applause] Congratulations on your graduation and thank you for allowing me the honor of being a part of it. [applause] Let me acknowledge your wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, your mayor John Hieftje [Obama misses pronunciation with a novel variation to The Chronicle, saying /Heef-jay/] and all the members of Congress who are here today. It is a privilege to be with you on this happy occasion.

America’s Voices

-

America’s Voices: How Obama Keeps in Touch

And you know, it’s nice to spend a little time outside of Washington. [applause] Now, don’t get me wrong, Washington is a beautiful city. [audience laughter] It’s very nice living above the store – you can’t beat the commute. [audience laughter ~5 s.] It’s just sometimes, all you hear in Washington is the clamor of politics. And all that noise can drown out the voices of the people who sent you there. So when I took office, I decided that each night I would read 10 letters, out of the tens of thousands that are sent to us by ordinary Americans every day. This is my modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place.

America’s Voices: Kindergartners

Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, some express anger. I’d say a good solid third call me an idiot, [audience laughter] which is how I know that I’m getting a good representative sample. [audience laughter, Obama also laughs, generating cheers] Some of the letters make you think, like the one I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia. Now, the teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. So one asked, How do you do your job? [audience laughter] Another asked, Do you work a lot? [audience laughter] Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard. [audience laughter] So clearly they were getting me mixed up with the other tall guy from Illinois. [audience laughter, followed by collective "aww" in response to a shot of a little kid on the stadium scoreboard screen] And one of my favorites was from a kid who wanted to know if I lived next to a volcano. [audience laughter] I’m still trying to piece the thought process on this. [Obama laughs] I love this letter.

[Note: Obama's reference to "the other tall guy from Illinois" is a reference to Abraham Lincoln.]

America’s Voices: Niceness

But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, Are people being nice? Are people being nice? Well, if you turn on the news today, or yesterday, or a week ago, or a month ago, particularly one of the cable channels, [audience laughter] you can see, [audience laughter] you can see why even a kindergartner would ask this question. [audience laughter] We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story, which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible.

Contentious Discourse

-

Contentious Discourse: Origins in Current Crisis

Now, some of this contentiousness can be attributed to the incredibly difficult moment in which we find ourselves as a nation. Fact is, when you leave here today, you will search for work in an economy that is still emerging from the worst crisis since The Great Depression. You live in a century where the speed with which jobs and industries move across the globe is forcing America to compete like never before. You will raise your children at a time when threats like terrorism and climate change aren’t confined within the borders of any one country. As our world grows smaller and more connected, you will live and work with more people who don’t look like you, or think like you, or come from where you do.

Contentious Discourse: Historical Context

I really enjoyed Alex’s remarks, because that’s a lot of change. [The allusion was to the student speaker at the commencement, Alex Marston, whose message focused on change, and the difficulties inherent in accepting change.] And all these changes and all these challenges, inevitably cause tension in the body politic. They make people worry about the future. And sometimes they get people riled up. But I think it’s important that we maintain some historic perspective. Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business. It’s always been a little less genteel during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. [audience laughter] Not subtle. [audience laughter] Opponents of Andrew Jackson often referred to his mother as a common prostitute, which seems a little over the top. [audience laughter, also from Obama] Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been accused of promoting socialism or worse. We’ve had arguments between politicians that have been settled with actual duels. There was even a caning once on the floor of the United States Senate, which I’m happy to say didn’t happen while I was there. [audience laughter] It was a few years before. [audience laughter, also from Obama]

[Note: The reference to "actual duels" is to the pistol duel in 1804 between Alexander Hamilton, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, and Aaron Burr, who was vice president at the time. Hamilton died of the wound he received at the duel. The reference to the Senate caning is to a physical attack by Congressman Preston Brooks on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856, in response to a speech that Sumner had delivered against the Fugitive Slave Act. The speech had insulted one of the authors of the act, Andrew Butler, who was a relative of Brooks.]

Contentious Discourse: The Nature of American Politics

The point is, politics has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. If you enter the arena you should expect to get roughed up. Moreover, democracy and a nation of more than 300 million people is inherently difficult. It’s always been noisy, and messy, contentious, complicated. We’ve been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the days the framers gathered in Philadelphia. We’ve battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted. As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture, to industry, to information, to technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity.

So before we get too depressed about the current state of our politics, let’s remember our history. The great debates of the past all stirred great passion. They all made somebody angry. And at least once led to a terrible war. What is amazing is that despite all the conflict, despite all its flaws and its frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any form of government on earth. [applause ~15 seconds] On the last day of the Constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked: Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy? And Franklin gave an answer that has been quoted for ages. He said: A republic, if you can keep it.

If you can keep it.

How to Preserve Democracy

Well, for more than 200 years we have kept it. Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived. Through depression and world war it has prevailed. Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women’s rights. It has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant? How will you keep it well in this century? I’m not here to offer some grand theory, or detailed policy prescription. But let me offer of few brief reflections, based on my own experiences, and the experiences of our country over the last two centuries.

Preserving Democracy: Adapt Role of Government to Changing World

First of all, American democracy has thrived, because we have recognized the need for a government that while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world. On the fourth panel of the Jefferson Memorial is a quote I remember reading to my daughters, during our first visit there. It says, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” A democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn’t have all the answers. We have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That’s a strand of our nation’s DNA.

But the other strand is the belief that there are some things that we can only do together, as one nation. And that our government must keep pace with the times. When America expanded from a few colonies to an entire continent and we needed a way to reach the Pacific, our government helped build the railroads. When we transitioned from an economy based on farms to one based on factories, and workers needed new skills and training, our nation set up a system of public high schools. When the markets crashed during The Depression, and people lost their life savings, our government put in place a set of rules and safeguards to make sure that such a crisis never happened again, and then put a safety net in place to make sure that our elders would never be as impoverished the way they had been. And because our markets and financial systems have evolved since then, we’re now putting in place new rules to safeguard and protect the American people.

Now this notion [applause ~ 10 s.], this notion, class, hasn’t always been partisan. It was the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. And he would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said the object of the government is a welfare of the people. And he is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, establish our national park system. [applause ~5 s.] Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched a massive government undertaking known as the interstate highway system.

Of course, there have always been those who oppose such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient, it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances that’s been true. And for many years we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility. At times we’ve neglected the role of parents, rather than government, in cultivating a child’s education. And sometimes regulations fail, sometimes the benefits don’t justify their costs.

But what troubles me is when I hear people saying, all of government is inherently bad. And one of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, “Keep your government hands out of my Medicare,” [audience laughter ~5 s.] which is essentially saying “Keep government out of my government-run health care plan.” Now, when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening, foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold our [applause ~ 5 s.] we the people hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government’s the police officers, who are protecting our communities, and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. [applause ~5 s.] Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures the mines adhere to safety standards, or that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university, [applause extending through "big and small"] a place that’s doing life-saving research, and catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small. And the truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades now, between more government and less government, it doesn’t really fit the times in which we live.

[Note: The reference to mine safety alludes to the April 5 explosion that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, W.Va., a mine owned by Massey Energy. The U.S. Justice Department is currently investigating that incident. The mention of oil spills refers to the ruptured oil well off the Louisiana coast, creating a massive spill that's projected to be a worse ecological disaster than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The well is owned by the oil company BP. Obama was expected to visit the region on Sunday.]

We know that too much government can stifle competition and deprive us of choice and burden us with debt. But we’ve also clearly seen the dangers of too little government. Like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly leads to the collapse of our entire economy. [applause ~5 s.] So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or a small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government. Because in an era of iPods and TiVo, where we have more choices than ever before, even though I can’t really work a lot of these things, [audience laughter] but I have 23-year-olds who do it for me, [audience laughter] government shouldn’t try to dictate our lives, but it should give you the tools you need to succeed.

Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot, an opportunity for every American who is willing to work hard. [applause ~10 s.] So, yes, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives. But remember, as you are asked to meet the challenges of our time, remember that the ability of us to adapt our government to the needs of the age has helped make our democracy work since its inception.

Preserving Democracy: Maintain Civility

Now the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we’re having, over government and healthcare and war and taxes, these are serious arguments. They should arouse people’s passions. And it’s important for everybody to join in the debate with all the vigor that the maintenance of a free people requires. But we can’t expect to solve our problems, if all we do is tear each other down. [applause smattering extending to "right-wing nut"] You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and their judgment, without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialists,” “Soviet-style takeover” and “fascists,” and “right-wing nut” [audience laughter] – that may grab headlines, but also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes. Now, we’ve seen this kind of politics in the past, it’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth. But it’s starting to creep into the center of our discourse.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they’ve signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. [audience laughter] The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation, it prevents learning. Since, after all, why should we listen to a fascist or a socialist or a right-wing nut? [audience laughter smattering] Or a left-wing nut? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences, to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture. And at its worst, it can send signals to the extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

So what can we do? As I found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of politics is not easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: Treat others as you would like to be treated. With courtesy and respect. [applause ~10 s.] But stability in this age also requires something more than just asking if we can’t just all get along. Today’s 24/7 echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.

It’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and deepen the political divides in this country.

But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from. Now this requires us to agree on a certain set of facts to debate from. That’s why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and the talking heads. [applause ~5 s.] That’s why we need an educated citizenry that values hard evidence and not just assertion. [applause ~5 s.] As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” [audience laughter]

Still, if you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of the New York Times, try glancing at the page of the Wall Street Journal, once in a while. If you are a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind might not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. [applause] It is essential for democracy. [applause ~5 s.]

So, too, is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people. I look out at this class and I realize for four years at Michigan you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars, professors and students. Don’t narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it.

If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with somebody who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your own race or ethnicity or religion, include people in your circle who have different backgrounds, life experiences. You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes. And in the process you will help to make this democracy work. [applause ~10 s.]

Preserving Democracy: Participate In It

Which brings me to the last ingredient of a functioning democracy, one that’s perhaps most basic. And it’s already been mentioned, and that is participation. Class of 2010, I understand that one effect of today’s poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life. If all you see when you turn on the TV is name-calling, if all you hear about is how special interests lobbying in partisanship prevented Washington from getting something done, then you might think to yourself, what’s the point of getting involved?

Here’s the point: When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s what powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of power, because none of us are there to speak up and stop them. Participation in public life doesn’t mean that you all have to run for public office, though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington. [audience laughter] But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can.

Stay informed. Write letters or make phone calls on behalf of an issue that you care about. If electoral politics isn’t your thing, continue the tradition that so many of you started here at Michigan, and find a way to serve your community and your country, an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

You know, it was 50 years ago that a young candidate for president came here to Michigan and delivered a speech that inspired one of the most successful service projects in American history. And as John F. Kennedy described the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps, he issued a challenge to the students who had assembled in Ann Arbor on that October night. On your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country, he said, will depend the answer whether a free society can compete. I think it can, he said.

This democracy we have is a precious thing. For all the arguments and all the doubts and all the cynicism that’s out there today, we should never forget that as Americans, we enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than citizens in any other nation on earth. [applause extending through "down"] We are free to speak our mind and worship as we please, we are free to choose our leaders, and criticize them if they let us down. We have a chance to get an education and work hard and give our children a better life.

None of this came easy. None of this was preordained. The men and women who sat in your chairs 10 years ago, and 50 years ago and 100 years ago, they made America possible through their toil and their endurance, their imagination and their faith. Their success and America’s success was never a given. There is no guarantee that the graduates who will sit in the same seats 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, or 100 years from now, will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that you do. You, too, will have to strive. You, too, will have to push the boundaries of what seems possible. For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain.

What is certain, what has always been certain, is the ability to shape the destiny. That is what makes us different. That is what sets us apart. That is what makes us Americans. Our ability at the end of the day to look past all our differences and all of our disagreements, and still forge a common future.

Conclusion: Calling Graduates to Action

And that task is now in your hands. As is the answer to the question posed at this university a half a century ago, about whether a free society can still compete. If you are willing, as past generations were willing, to contribute part of your life to the life of this country, then I, like President Kennedy, believe we can. Because I believe in you. Congratulations on your graduation 2010. May God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

Word cloud analysis of Alex Marston's commencement address. Image links to higher resolution file. Analysis done at http://www.wordle.net/

Speaking to his fellow graduates at the University of Michigan’s spring commencement ceremony on May 1, 2010, senior Alex Marston’s brief remarks gave a quick tour through some touchstones of student culture.

That tour ranged from food, to football, to academics. Marston’s focus was change – an idea that his fellow commencement speaker, President Barack Obama, had made the centerpiece of his successful 2008 campaign.

The Chronicle transcribed and annotated the address as delivered.

Thank you, Dean McDonald. President Obama, distinguished guests, faculty, friends, family, and fellow graduates. [audience cheers]

[Note: Marston was introduced by Terry McDonald, dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts at the University of Michigan. ]

Today, we graduates are forced to change, to move forward in a new direction. But change is a funny thing. We desire change, but we fear it. We say things like, “I just want to make a difference in the world.” Yet we grow uneasy when the world around us changes. We invent new technologies and then we worry that they will ruin our values and our traditions. We want instant gratification, without hard work or sacrifice. President Obama was elected on his promise of “change we can believe in.” But after he took office he found many resistances to change. [audience laughter and applause]

[Note: The laughter can be attributed to the difficult first 16 months Obama has experienced in office.]

As a nation, we have found that changes can bring us together, but they can also tear us apart. We can see our ambivalence in that change here on campus as well. After the horror of a certain football game played here a few years ago, many were thrilled when Michigan hired a coach who would bring a new energy and style of football to our school. But after two seasons, change has been slow [audience laughter] and full of growing pains. [more audience laughter] Today, we must re-examine our views toward change. [audience laughter] We must embrace change and realize that with every change comes new opportunity.

[Note: Reference to the "horror of a certain football game" is to the Sept. 1, 2007 defeat of UM by Appalachian State by a score of 34-32.]

While most of us will no longer be able to spend our Fridays at Charley’s [audience cheers] and our Sundays at the UGLi, we will create new traditions and find new goals to achieve. With what we have attained at the University of Michigan, we will become the teachers, doctors, lawyers, and engineers who will shape the future of our country. Of course, there are some changes that cannot be spun in a positive light. After all, there is no deli in the world that can match the pastrami at Zingerman’s. And no burger whose grease is quite as delectable as the grease of a Blimpy burger.

[Note: Of the references, three are eateries, while the fourth is campus vernacular for the undergraduate library: Good Time Charley's, Zingerman's Deli, Blimpy Burger, UGLi]

But still we must embrace change and follow the lead of Michigan graduates who have changed the world. Arthur Miller, who in 1949 redefined American theater with his play, “Death of a Salesman.” Margaret Brewer, who in 1978 became the first woman to achieve the rank of general in the United States Marine Corps. And Gerald Ford, who after being named the most valuable player on the 1934 Michigan football team, went on to become the leader of the free world. So as we graduate today, I encourage us to embrace change and realize that we can make a difference. We can join the ranks of over 400,000 living Michigan alumni. And when we’ve reached our goals, we can look back on our time together at Michigan and be grateful to the university that has provided us with the tools and the will to make the world a better place.

Go Blue!

From left to right: Mayor John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and city administrator Roger Fraser. The trio were basking in the blue glow of the slide projector before the start of the council meeting, which began with Fraser's budget presentation. (Photos by the writer.)

The council must adopt amendments to the budget by their second meeting in May – May 17 this year – or else see the administrator’s unamended budget enacted by default, as stipulated by a city charter provision.

The council also heard a summary of the parking plan that they had commissioned the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to produce.

Related to the city budget and the DDA board – but not reported during communications time at the council meeting – members of the DDA board and city council held a closed-door meeting last Friday afternoon with city administrator Roger Fraser to discuss a $2 million payment by the DDA to the city this year.

At Monday evening’s meeting, the council postponed a vote on a schedule of fine increases for parking violations. The estimated $635,000 in additional revenues that the increases would bring, said CFO Tom Crawford at the meeting, was not part of the FY 2011 budget assumptions.

The topic of the University of Michigan’s upcoming graduation exercises on May 1, which will feature an address by President Barack Obama, found its way into deliberations at various points in the meeting. The city approved road closures around the football stadium in conjunction with the UM commencement. Residents who live near Elbel Field will contend with floodlights and loudspeakers as early as 4 a.m. on commencement morning. And during public commentary, one resident expressed concern over the city’s denial of a permit to demonstrate – organizers of “Fulfilling the Dream” expect to draw hundreds on May 1, but as yet have nowhere to gather.

The city administrator’s report to the council featured an explanation of parking citations handed out during the previous Saturday’s UM spring football game, as well as an explanation of the closure of city hall last week due to elevated levels of carbon monoxide.

Public commentary was weighted towards an agenda item that allocated $313,000 from the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund for three different permanent housing projects. The council approved the allocation.

The council also satisfied an obligation it had under the settlement terms of a recent lawsuit by voting to remand consideration of an email rule to its rules committee.

In Part 1 of this report, we focus on the budget, parking and UM’s commencement.

FY 2011 Budget Presentation

The city of Ann Arbor’s fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 the following year – FY 2011 starts in about two months, on July 1, 2010. The public hearing on the budget will take place at the council’s next regular meeting on May 3.

FY 2011 Budget: Process

City administrator Roger Fraser’s presentation began with a timeline overview of the budget process to date and how it would move forward. Last year at this time, in May 2009, the council had adopted the FY 2010 budget as part of a two-year fiscal plan that included both 2010 and 2011. [Although the city council, per the city charter, adopts budgets one year at a time, the city takes a two-year approach to planning.] Then in August of 2009, the city had forecast a revenue shortfall for the FY 2010 year.

By November 2009, a revised revenue shortfall was calculated with a specific recommendation to make mid-year adjustments. Those adjustments included the layoff of 14 firefighters starting in January 2010, instead of July 2010 as outlined in the two-year fiscal plan presented last year. Negotiations for a 3% pay cut with the firefighters union resulted in a delay of those layoffs to their originally scheduled date of July 1, 2010. The FY 2011 budget proposed by Fraser on Monday cuts the firefighter force by an additional six firefighter positions, for a total of 20.

At the December 2009 city council budget retreat, the council heard that the mid-year adjustments would be implemented. They also engaged in a “big idea” discussion. Since the beginning of 2010, continued Fraser, the council had met in five sessions devoted specifically to the budget – one in January, two in February, and one in March. Chronicle coverage of the December 2009 budget retreat plus the 2010 city council meetings devoted specifically to the budget:

• Ann Arbor City Budget: Cuts Begin Now
• Budget Round 1: Community Services
• Budget Round 2: What’s the Big Idea?
• Budget Round 3: Where’s Your Emergency?
• Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass
• Budget Round 5: Economic Development

Fraser’s Monday presentation to the council is required by the city charter. Next steps:

• May 3, 2010: City council public hearing on the FY 2011 budget
• May 17, 2010: City council must adopt any amendments to FY 2011 budget

Budget FY 2011: How the Financial Picture Has Changed

Fraser reviewed for the council what they’d been shown this time last year. [The previous year's budget had included a planned use of general fund reserves to pay for early-retirement incentives offered to police officers, in order to achieve a reduction in force without layoffs and demotions.]

                    FY 09–Adptd   FY 10          FY 11
Revenues           $86,169,851   $85,202,388    $82,868,508
Expenses            89,214,660    84,735,376     83,250,520
Surplus/Deficit     (3,044,809)      467,012       (382,012)

-

The difference between the planned and actual deficit in FY 2009 of $3 million versus $8.5 million was a result of two main factors: More police officers opted for the early-out retirement program than the city needed in order to achieve its long-term budget goals ($4.9 million), and the city had to pay to settle a police union arbitration case ($673,000). The early-retirement incentives resulted in 24 sworn officers and 2 dispatchers leaving the force. This chart shows the actual general fund activity for FY 2009, and current projections for FY 2010 and FY 2011:

                    FY 09–Actl    FY 10          FY 11
Revenues           $82,593,860   $81,830,921    $76,345,552
Expenses            91,019,044    82,368,636     77,877,563
Surplus/Deficit     (8,425,184)     (537,715)    (1,532,011)

-

The $6.5 million change in revenue projections for FY 2011 are due to a variety of factors other than property tax revenues – which have actually performed better than predicted. Property tax revenues were forecast to be down in FY 2010, but have not been down as much as expected, with the result that the city received about $300,000 more property taxes than expected in FY 2010.

The specific issues that have caused the revenue shortfall, Fraser said, were first and foremost the reduction in state shared revenues. State shared revenue is the portion of the Michigan sales tax that the state redistributes to local municipalities in an arrangement whereby municipalities have relatively little authority to levy taxes of their own – property and income taxes are the extent of Michigan city tax options.

Fraser said the city had made a mistake in believing the state when they said state shared revenue would be held harmless in the state’s budget planning. In October 2009 the state announced that  reductions in state shared revenue would be implemented. This year, the city is forecasting that by this time next year the state will cut the statutory portion – that part of state shared revenue controlled by the legislature – by half of what is currently left. That would mean another $1.2 million reduction for the city.

Roger Fraser takes the podium to start his budget presentation.

In addition, investment income is off, traffic citations are down, development review fees compared to previous years are virtually nonexistent, and revenue that had been forecast from the installation of new parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown has not been realized, Fraser said. [In large part, the parking meters have not been installed, due to efforts undertaken by a group of councilmembers led by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to find alternative revenue options besides the meters.]

In forecasting property tax revenues and state shared revenues, Fraser did not paint an optimistic picture. On a mid-range forecast of property tax revenues, they’re not predicted to come back up to FY 2009 levels until 2015. The statutory portion of state shared revenues is predicted to disappear completely by FY 2012.

Fraser also pointed to the city’s problem over a lack of agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority regarding the DDA’s lease for operating the city’s parking system. The previous five years, Fraser said, that agreement had yielded around $2 million for the city. For this budget, however, the city could not yet report that $2 million as revenue, because there was no agreement in place.

Budget FY 2011: The $2 million DDA Question

Last year, the city and the DDA publicly enacted a mechanism to begin consideration of a revision to the agreement by which the DDA administers the city’s parking system. The 10-year deal was struck in 2005 and calls for the DDA to pay the city $1 million a year, but provides the city an option to request up to $2 million in any given year. However, there’s a cap of $10 million on payments for the 10-year period. The city has exercised the $2 million option every year for the first five years of the contract, leaving the DDA under no obligation to make a payment for FY 2011.

The publicly enacted mechanism for reconsideration of the city-DDA parking agreement included the appointment of sub-committees last year – one committee of the DDA board and another from the city council – to negotiate the deal. [These have been referred to as the "mutually beneficial" committees.] Under the requirements of a 1991 city council resolution, sub-committees of the city are required, to the best of their ability, to comply with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

On Friday, April 16, at 3 p.m. members of the DDA’s committee met with some city councilmembers in Roger Fraser’s office to discuss the deal. In barring The Chronicle from the Friday meeting, which we attempted to attend, Fraser rejected the applicability of the council resolution that requires the meetings of city sub-committees to comply with the Open Meetings Act, contending it was a “working group,” not a sub-committee.

Present in addition to Fraser were six others: Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA; DDA board members Roger Hewitt, Sandi Smith and Russ Collins – all members of the DDA’s committee established to discuss the parking  deal; and city councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Hohnke is on the council’s committee, while Taylor is not. The council’s committee consists of Hohnke, and Margie Teall (Ward 4), and originally included Leigh Greden before he was defeated in the August 2009 Democratic primary by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). [Note that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) serves on the city council as well as the DDA board.]

Since establishing its committees to renegotiate the parking agreement, neither the city council nor the DDA board has reported at any of its meetings on the replacement of its publicly enacted committee process, in favor of one involving a “working group.” [Previous Chronicle reporting on this topic: "Parking Report Portends City-DDA Tension"]

If the city is to include the $2 million in its FY 2011 budget, the DDA board could authorize an expenditure of a $2 million contingency in its budget at its regular May 5, 2010 meeting. Failing that, the board could also convene a special meeting to authorize the payment.

Budget FY 2011: Cost Reduction Strategies

Highlights of some of the cost reductions that have already been implemented, said Fraser, include a 25% reduction in personnel since 2001. Overtime charges continued to be reduced – in particular in public safety services. Technology is being used to improve services. Health care costs are being reduced through use of self insurance, with premiums and co-pays for nonunion workers.

Fraser pointed out that in 2006, nonunion employees, as well as Teamster police professionals and Teamster civilian supervisor employees, started contributing a greater amount to their insurance costs. For 2010 and 2011, nonunion employees were already subject to a pay freeze and they will have a 3% total compensation reduction this year.

In January of this year, firefighters agreed to a 3% wage reduction, and increased employee contribution to the pension plan by 1%. The existing contract with the AFSCME union has a 3% wage increase specified for this year, scheduled to start on July 1, 2010 – they are the only group of employees that are due for an increase, said Fraser.

It is fair to point out, cautioned Fraser, that this year is the final year of a five-year contract for AFSCME and for the first three years of their contract, they had no wage increases at all. Fraser allowed that there had been some lump-sum payments for those years, but in terms of base salary they had gone for three years without a wage increase. Still, the city has asked AFSCME to open the contract for July, and that request is still pending.

With other bargaining units, Fraser said, the city is still negotiating. Fraser then ticked through a list of various collaborative efforts with other government and nonprofit entities.

Budget FY 2011: Assumptions

The proposed budget for FY 2011 assumes that there will be no new major sources of revenue either in the form of an income tax or property tax. However, in the printed budget message to the council, city administrator Roger Fraser indicates that after July 1, 2010 he plans to discuss other revenue options with the council.

In conjunction with the budget, there will be a set of selected fee increases recommended where the city feels that it is out of place with the market or with the city’s costs, Fraser said.

The assumption is that the state of Michigan will continue to struggle with its own budget deficit. That is compounded this year, Fraser said, by the fact that there will be a massive turnover at the state legislature with a number of people in the House and the Senate and in the governor’s office, who will not be seeking election this fall because of term limits. It is yet to be seen what the impacts will be in terms of their willingness and ability to make decisions affecting the future of the state, Fraser concluded. “We have not assumed a great deal of optimism about that,” Fraser cautioned.

For FY 2011 for nonunion workers there is an assumed 3% total compensation reduction, which will include increased pension contribution and health care premium co-pays.

Budget FY 2011: Specific Recommendations for General Fund

Specific budget recommendations presented by Fraser included eliminating 15 positions in police services, one of which is vacant, in addition to the five vacancies that occurred last year – for a savings of $1.6 million. This proposal differs slightly from the drafts of budget impact sheets prepared in the course of the budget season, which showed $1.6 million in savings resulting from nine police officer layoffs, and five community standards officers – two of them supervisors. However, during deliberations on parking fine enforcement later in the council meeting, when questioned by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) about reductions in community standards officers, Fraser said that the final reductions did not include community standards officers.

Savings for FY 2011 include a reduction in the number of police vehicles, which would result in a $270,000 savings. In addition to the 14 firefighter positions originally planned for FY 2011 as part of the two-year fiscal plan, another six positions are to be eliminated for a total of 20 fewer firefighters – a savings of around $2 million.

Community services recommendations include a $260,000 reduction in funding to nonprofits. A transfer of funds to the affordable housing fund would be eliminated, for a savings of $100,000. A restructuring of staff in the planning and development department, which eliminated one full-time position, would result in a net savings of around $75,000.

Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center would be kept open. Implementing suggestions of two task forces – formed as a result of last year’s discussion of the FY 2011 plan, which originally proposed shutting those facilities – will allow them to operate at a cost in the coming year that’s $140,000 less than before. Increases in parks and recreation fees will generate around $60,000, and football parking at Allmendinger and Frisinger parks is projected to generate $34,000. In public services, the mowing cycle for parks will be lengthened from 19 to 23 days, but hand trimming would be kept in place, for a savings of around $112,000. Maintenance in 17 parks would be eliminated except for right-of-way areas – that would save a little over $50,000.

Fraser reported that the city had an agreement in principle with DTE on the de-energizing of certain streetlights for a savings of around $120,000. The cost of right-of-way tree planting is proposed to be shifted to the stormwater fund for a savings of $142,000. This is based on the city’s research, said Fraser, indicating that the most effective thing that they can do to reduce runoff is to plant trees.

The implementation of loading zone fees would generate around $20,000. Revised agreements with the Downtown Development Authority on revenues from the 415 W. Washington parking lot and the Fifth & William surface lot will generate around $180,000.

This year’s budget – for the first time, said Fraser – would include increased maintenance costs due to the construction of the new police/courts building, for an increased expenditure of $277,000. The plan for installing new parking meters in near downtown neighborhoods, which was included in the FY 2010 budget but not implemented, will also not be part of the FY 2011 budget, for a projected revenue loss of around $450,000.

The 15th District Court, said Fraser, had been responsive to the city’s communications about cost reductions, and had proposed that the staff work week be reduced to 37.5 hours. Salaries for the magistrate, the court administrator, the deputy administrator and probation supervisor would be reduced by 3%. The financial manager salary would be set at a lower level – $55,000. The district court would also eliminate three full-time positions, two of which are currently vacant. One of the positions would be eliminated after the court moves to the new police/courts facility currently under construction at Fifth and Huron.

In the clerk’s office, costs would be reduced by publishing legal notices in the Washtenaw Legal News, for a savings of $24,000. Overtime charges associated with the election preparation season would be eliminated. On Fridays in advance of the election season, the clerk’s office service windows would be closed, as clerk’s staff would be working on preparation for the elections. In previous years, because of the demand at the window, that preparation work could not be completed during the day, which necessitated overtime, Fraser said. Staff believes that by closing the window on Fridays and devoting that time to election preparations, $17,000 can be saved.

In financial services, one position is being eliminated in the budget office for a savings of $90,000. An accounting position is being re-allocated so it would be serving on a project for the remainder of FY 2011 – that would save $82,000 in the general fund. Virtually all professional consulting would be eliminated in financial services, with the exception of the auditor and the fraud hotline, for a savings of $55,000. Installation of the new phone system has also resulted in savings, which would be recognized in this year’s budget in the amount of around $165,000.

Budget FY 2011: Outside the General Fund

Outside the general fund, the first item in the set of budget recommendations is the evaluation of Huron Hills Golf Course as a self-sustaining enterprise with private management. Fraser indicated that an RFP had been put out – or if it had not been put out yet, it would be soon – for proposals to run that parks facility with a private vendor.

Other proposals centered on the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage: focus on maintenance of existing facilities, with no building of new infrastructure; and eliminate the 3% annual increase that the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) unit is provided by a council resolution governing allocation of the millage funds.

Leaf collection will take place via a containerized operation, with residents no longer invited to dump their leaves loose into the street for collection via front-end loaders and dump trucks. The city’s compost operation is also currently undergoing an RFP process.

Not this year, but for FY 2012, the city will be looking at the privatization/franchising of its trash collection service.

Fraser concluded his presentation: “That’s it. Council?” Councilmembers had no immediate questions. Those will come at the next two council meetings.

Budget FY 2011: Public Commentary, Response on Police/Courts

As she has done occasionally since the summer of 2009, Libby Hunter delivered her remarks during public commentary in the form of a song. This week’s melody was from the final movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125 “Choral” – the “Ode to Joy” choral part. Her lyrical focus was on budget issues, with particular attention to the police/courts building currently under construction.

The criticism of the decision to build the police/courts facility and the lyric’s contention that police officers were laid off in order to afford its construction provoked a reaction from mayor John Hieftje during the council’s communications time on the meeting agenda.

Hieftje stressed that the city of Ann Arbor had never laid off a police officer. In the course of his remarks, he allowed that there’s “a lot of leeway in a song.” [The budget proposed by city administrator Roger Fraser less than an hour previously had called for police layoffs.]

On the merits of the decision to build the police/courts facility, Hieftje’s response began: “I thought everyone had figured out the need for the police/courts building.” He then recounted some of the history of the decision to build the facility. Back in 1999, he said, there was discussion of rebuilding the entire Larcom building, but the city chose not to go forward.

The decision to restart a building project was triggered by the Washtenaw County administrator, he said, because the county had another use for the courtroom that the city was leasing from the county to house the 15th District Court. [The city is required to house the court.] That alternate use, Hieftje continued, was for the juvenile court, which will be moved from its location on Platt Road to the space that the city now leases for the court.

The city looked at 10 different locations for constructing a new building, Hieftje said, after not being able to find another building to retrofit.  There was never a plan to keep the police department in the Larcom building, he said. He noted that the city will save $700,000 in rent with the new construction. In addition, the DDA is helping out, which is consistent with their mission of developing buildings in the downtown area.

Police/Courts Building: Historical Perspective

In his remarks at Monday’s council meeting, Hieftje was echoing sentiments he’d expressed online a few years earlier on ArborUpdate, in a comment that responded to a question from local attorney David Cahill. Cahill had challenged Hieftje to explain why he had not vetoed the police/courts building after voting against it and threatening a veto on the key council decision made on March 5, 2007.

The ArborUpdate comment was written a year after that key vote. Hieftje wrote the comment on March 23, 2008, after an effort by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at the council’s March 17, 2008 meeting had failed to win support to restart the conversation with the county on the court’s lease question. Hieftje’s comment reads in part:

I have not vetoed the proposal because I have no viable alternative to constructing a new police/courts building. I have been searching for an alternative to a new building but could not find one. We have investigated existing buildings both on the edge of the city and in the downtown but none have met the requirements for a secure court house, even with extensive, expensive renovation. We investigated building on the Library parking lot and the Ann Arbor News lot. [link to complete ArborUpdate comment]

As Tom Gantert reported in a March 13, 2007 Ann Arbor News article:

Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje has backed away from his promised veto of the resolution that cleared the way for the city to start planning for a new police station and courts building next to the existing city hall.

Hieftje said Monday that after meeting privately with various council members that he expects the council will reconsider the vote and bring it back up at next week’s meeting. He said a final decision will then be postponed until after the 2007-08 budget is passed in late May.

The mayor had said he would veto the resolution after the council voted 7-4 at its March 5 meeting to pay an architect $1 million to design the $34 million building. Hieftje and Council Members Ron Suarez, D-1st Ward, Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, and Bob Johnson, D-1st Ward, all voted no.

The reconsideration of the vote at the council’s following meeting resulted in the splitting of the architectural fees. An amount of $129,250 was specified for initial architectural services, leaving the decision on spending another $833,350 for later. The later expenditure was also approved.

Some hint of the nature of the private meetings reported by The News is provided by a March 5, 2007 email exchange among Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), and former councilmembers Leigh Greden and Joan Lowenstein [.pdf file of email exchange discussion of councilmembers about Hieftje's potential veto].

In that exchange, Greden initially proposed that the group threaten the mayor with specific kinds of uncooperative behavior:

We say the following: “If you follow through with your veto, we are prepared, as a group, to vote against all committee appointments, Agenda items, resolutions, budget amendments and other projects you bring to the City Council for the foreseeable future. We constitute a working majority of City Council. We will not announce this to the public in order to give you the chance to do the right thing w/o our position being made public. The choice is yours.”

In a later draft, Greden appears to settle on softer language:

If you follow through with your veto, you should know it will change the nature of our working relationship with you on this Council. We will not announce this to the public in order to give you the chance to do the right thing w/o our position being
made public.

Hieftje’s ArborUpdate comment reflects that his decision was affected by a potential level of non-cooperation from the Greden-led majority if he vetoed the project. Wrote Hieftje:

I have worked for several years with the “veteran” majority on City Council that is supporting the Building. They are thoughtful individuals who have been working on a solution to this problem for years. [...]

Council veterans supported me in devoting more funding and staff support to non-motorized transit. They supported the Greenbelt Campaign and the Clean Communities Program. They supported the Mayor’s Green Energy Challenge and the commuter rail proposal and One Percent for Art. Disagreeing with a majority of council members whom I respect is one thing, a veto is yet another. A veto would make it harder for me to work with the majority of council members on other issues. Frustration over this issue could spill over into other council business even more than it already has. A cohesive majority has a much better chance of coming together around solid solutions than a fractured council.

Ann Arbor Parking

The topic of parking was woven throughout the meeting in the form of the DDA’s report, a discussion of parking violation fines, and University of Michigan commencement exercises.

DDA Parking Plan: Presentation

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and Roger Hewitt, who serves on the board and chairs its operations committee, shared the presentation of a parking plan. The city council had asked in December 2009 that the DDA produce a plan. In her opening remarks, Pollay referred to the December 2009 city council meeting as featuring some “fairly intense dialogue.”

By way of some recent background to the report, at the DDA’s partnerships committee on March 14, 2010, which was attended by city councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), tweaks to the final draft of the parking report were considered. DDA board member Jennifer S. Hall objected to any edits of the language that would soften the idea that revenue generation was the impetus behind the city council’s consideration of the evening enforcement idea back in December.

An email was circulated at the partnerships committee meeting from an unidentified city official, who wrote:

My only comment is the report starts out indicating it was kicked-off by a request from Council to extend meter enforcement in order to obtain additional money for the City. I think this oversimplifies the questions and concerns of Council and suggests the issue was raised just as a method to solve the City’s budget.

The draft of the report’s executive summary considered by the partnerships committee reads as follows:

Partnerships Draft Version:
Executive Summary
On December 21, 2009, the question of extending parking meter enforcement past 6pm came before Ann Arbor City Council as a revenue‐generating idea, as City Council and City staff have worked hard over the past several years to find new sources of revenues that enable the City to maintain current service levels for its citizens. The discussion about “evening enforcement” was enlarged to a broader conversation about public parking, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) was asked to pursue the development of a parking plan that included the following elements [...]

The final version of the report’s executive summary delivered to the city council reads as follows:

Final Version:
Executive Summary
[Ann] Arbor DDA has managed public parking since 1992 with the goal of a healthy, attractive, and diverse downtown. Over the years the DDA and Ann Arbor City Council have engaged in an ongoing conversation about how “demand management” can be used to shape policies and programs to gain even greater efficiencies from the public parking system by spreading demand, as well as encourage even greater use of sustainable transportation. As part of the 2009/10 City budget, parking meters were to be installed in several near downtown neighborhoods where commuter parking demand had been detected. During the fall of 2009 there was much discussion about these new parking meters, and on December 21, 2009, City Council approved a resolution that had three components 1) it suspended the plan to install these parking meters, 2) it requested that the DDA direct net revenues from the 350 S. Fifth Avenue parking lot (the former YMCA parking lot) to the City General Fund, and 3) it requested that the DDA present a public parking plan at its April 19, 2010 meeting that was to include the following elements [...]

[Previous Chronicle reporting on the content of the report: "Parking Report Portends City-DDA Tension"]

The report that the council asked the DDA to deliver was supposed to address issues like a communication plan to downtown patrons, merchants and evening employees, options for low cost parking for evening employees, variation of rates and meter time limits based on meter location, as well as the original change in hours of enforcement.

The final report is structured around nine strategies:

Strategy 1: Downtown curbside public parking should be managed to create turnover at the most convenient, commercial locations so these spaces can be more easily used by a large pool of downtown users.

Strategy 2: A comprehensive TDM [transportation demand management] strategy should be developed and utilized to support the downtown evening economy, including a management strategy for on‐street parking spaces, creation of additional evening employee parking/transportation options and communication strategies.

Strategy 3: Develop new off-street parking strategies to make it more attractive for patrons to park off‐street in public parking facilities, and thus relieve pressure on curbside parking, support downtown commerce and entertainment, and increase patron awareness of their parking use and costs.

Strategy 4: Develop policies and plans to add and subtract public parking downtown based on redevelopment, walkability, and transportation goals.

Strategy 5: Develop additional parking options for personal transportation vehicles, including motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles using new energy.

Strategy 6: Increase downtown employee use of public transit by expanding AATA service hours, developing a strong Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor transit plan, and making downtown transit stops more user‐friendly.

Strategy 7: Improve communications to downtown business owners, employees, customers and visitors by developing new communication tools and sharing information more broadly.

Strategy 8: Develop a parking and transportation strategy for downtown & near downtown residents.

Strategy 9: Miscellaneous parking and transportation suggestions.

At the conclusion of the report presentation, Hewitt asked the council to consider a joint working session with the city council and the DDA board after the council had wrapped up its budget process – that will be the end of May, at the earliest. The point of the working session, said Hewitt, would be to go through each strategy in detail and to figure out a way to move forward.

DDA Parking Plan: Council Deliberations

After Hewitt and Pollay delivered the report, council deliberations were dominated by praise for the DDA staff for their work on the report, which had been completed in a relatively short timeframe.

Susan Pollay hands a copy of the DDA parking plan to Sandi Smith (Ward 1) before the start of the council meeting.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) drew a parallel between a Huron Parkway-Nixon road roundabout project – which received a project-of-the-year award during the council’s meeting from the Michigan chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA) – and the DDA parking plan.

With both projects, Derezinski said, there was suspicion initially with a lot of questions. But there was a large public process and explanation. As a consequence, the suspicions and complaints have disappeared for the most part, he said, and also because the project is actually working. He felt the same would be true of the blueprint for parking that the DDA had put together.

Derezinski complimented in particular: (i) the comprehensive nature of proposal; and (ii) the interrelated nature of how parking is linked with transportation. On the question of whether the DDA had completed the council’s assignment, he concluded: “We asked for it to be addressed and it has been addressed.”

Mayor John Hieftje also complimented Hewitt and Pollay and everyone at the DDA – he said the work was done on a short timeline and the council appreciated the work.

Sand Smith (Ward 1) echoed Derezinski’s comments. One piece of the plan that wasn’t brought out is that “parking is going to be friendlier.” It will be less an attempt to ticket and punish. It would be more about carrots rather than sticks.

She also stressed that the parking violation fine schedule, which the council also considered the same evening, was not an outcome of the parking plan: “It’s distinctly different – those rates are not informed by the plan.” The parking plan presented by the DDA, she said, is a different philosophy of managing parking.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if any consideration had been given to making parking free. Naperville, a city in Illinois west of Chicago, had implemented free parking, said Kunselman. Pollay asked if the free parking rule applied to the whole city – Kunselman replied that it did. Pollay noted that best practice in the industry is going away from that. She said she was very eager and interested in seeing how a retrograde shift backwards worked in actual practice.

Responding to Kunselman, Hewitt said that it’s more a suburban community in Naperville. He also pointed out that Ann Arbor’s parking system is self-sufficient. If parking were free, said Hewitt, that would be a $14 million hole in the parking system budget.

Following council discussion on the parking plan – it was simply heard without any council action – Ray Detter addressed the council about the plan during public commentary. He spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, echoing in large part the sentiments that he had expressed at the DDA’s last board meeting. Only the DDA, Detter concluded, had the expertise to administer the parking system.

Parking: Fine Schedule

The council considered two resolutions related to parking fines at its Monday meeting. One related to how the fines are administered, while the other affected actual fine amounts. The first was approved, while the other was postponed.

The first resolution changed the city’s ordinance so that all parking violation fines are reflected in a schedule that can be changed by simple resolution of the city council, rather than embedded directly in the ordinance, which requires two readings before the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) clarified with the city treasurer, Matthew Horning: “I just want to be clear: This is not setting rates, it’s just setting ordinance about how we set rates.”

The change approved on Monday had received its first reading on Jan. 4, 2010. It removes fines related to handicap parking, odd/even parking districts, and snow emergencies from the city’s code and places them in the rest of the fine schedule.

Outcome: The ordinance amendment to place all parking violation fines in a fine schedule instead of embedding them in the city’s code was unanimously approved.

The fine schedule for parking violations was ultimately postponed on Monday. It had previously been postponed from the Jan. 19, 2010 council meeting. Still, it received a fair amount of discussion from councilmembers. The most basic change in the fine schedule is to increase expired meter violations from $15 to $20 – keeping the discounted rate of early payment the same, at $10.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated she’d received an email asking her a question she’d never been asked: Had there been any effect to research the impact on parking rate increases on downtown businesses?

City treasurer Horning indicated that the specific effect of rate increases had not been looked at but it was a fairly common belief, he said, that to get turnover of vehicles using parking spaces, you need to have a fine.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) – who had asked for the original postponement in January, so that the DDA parking plan would eventually inform the fine schedule – asked Horning to talk about adjustments he’d made since the last time. Horning was not sure what Smith meant. Smith clarified that back in January, city council had just put in a request to the DDA to deliver a report on a parking plan. Parking enforcement was a piece of that plan, she said. Her hope, Smith concluded, was that the plan would inform the direction of fines.

Horning said that no changes had been made to the schedule of fines since January.

Smith noted that in the DDA plan, proposed fines are presented in an appendix. Safety hazard fines, said Smith, should be higher than nuisance violations. Horning allowed that there was a logic to that.  Smith asked about the projected $635,000 increase in revenue that was projected. Horning explained that the increase was a result of all proposed changes in the schedule. They’d assumed the same level of ticketing and enforcement as 2008 in the initial estimate of $875,000 additional revenue, but based on more recent data from 2009, revised it downward to $635,000.

Smith said she’d like to see it discussed more fully in light of the reduced number of community standards officers that would be available to enforce tickets. City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that no further reductions were planned in community standards officers – there’d be the same number in 2011 as 2010.

Smith moved to postpone the change in parking violation fines.

Briere asked if there was a reason why it’s outside of budget deliberations, instead of being part of the budget discussion. The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, indicated that the fine schedule change was kicked off before the budget season started.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked if the increase in fine revenue was part of the budget. Crawford indicated that the increase was not assumed as part of the FY 2011 budget – it would be additional revenue.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then asked Smith what she was looking to accomplish during the postponement. Smith explained that she wanted to look at that part of the parking plan addressing fines – she wanted to understand the number of people who would be writing tickets.

Before the council voted, Horning pointed out that the new schedule includes discount rates for early payment for all categories of fines, and the discounted rate for expired meters would remain the same, at $10.

Outcome: The council unanimously postponed the new schedule of parking fines.

Parking: Commencement Logistics

Parking was also part of the council’s discussion of logistics for the upcoming University of Michigan commencement exercises at Michigan Stadium, which will feature an address by President Barack Obama.

Parking is expected to be a challenge, due to the decreased inventory of usual parking spaces normally associated with Saturday football games. The Pioneer High School parking lot is not available, due to a project under construction that will install massive underground stormwater detention tanks as part of the city’s effort to improve water quality in the Allen Creek watershed.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked on Monday that the usual off-street rules for football Saturdays be put in effect, which allow residents in neighborhoods around the football stadium to park cars on lawns [emphasis added]:

5:166.  Use of off-street parking facilities.
(1)   No person shall park a motor vehicle in the front open space, except on the driveway, in a structure or within an approved parking space or lot. This subsection shall not be applicable on those days when football games are played in The University of Michigan stadium.

Because Obama’s speech is not a football game, the ordinance would not apply. Teall was concerned about the ability of traffic to move around the stadium area.

Another kind of exception likely to be made for the commencement exercises is to treat on-street parking as if it’s a football game day. In neighborhoods around the stadium there are some streets posted as no-parking zones for football days.

On Brown Street near the Michigan football stadium, on-street parking on football game days is prohibited where posted.

Last weekend for the UM spring football game, the city initially ticketed cars parked on the street, if they were in no-parking-on-football-day zones. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if those tickets had been voided. City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that 95 citations had been issued in violation of the parking restriction on football days.

Fraser allowed that this had not been well-communicated to the neighborhood area. He reported that the city staff has voided every one of those 95 tickets, but stressed it was only those tickets written for violation of football day parking rules that had been voided.

Jim Kosteva was on hand to answer questions from the council about UM’s request for street closures around the stadium [.pdf with map of UM commencement street closings]. Main Street will be closed in both directions between Pauline and Stadium. The university also asked that the council prohibit sidewalk vendors around the stadium, to help reduce congestion.

The University has requested that the City prohibit sidewalk vendors in the vicinity of Michigan Stadium on May 1 to reduce congestion in and around the ceremony area. Chapter 47 (Streets) and Chapter 79 (Solicitors and Peddlers) allow Council to determine by resolution that on certain dates congestion in the City or a part of the City will be too great to permit peddling and soliciting and sidewalk occupancy.

Kosteva, who is director of the university’s community relations, was asked to the podium by Margie Teall (Ward 4) to comment on the university’s plan.

Kosteva said he appreciated consideration of the resolutions to facilitate desired lane and street closing. He expressed appreciation for the responsiveness of city staff in working with the university. He noted that the change from the normal course of commencement has brought additional responsibility to a whole host of folks. The university was establishing a secure area around stadium – all four lanes of Main Street would be closed. There’ll be a real shortage of parking in and around the stadium area, he cautioned, but the university would be making  aggressive use of  shuttles.

Kosteva also broke down the seating allocations. There are 80,000 seats that will be available in the stadium, but he reminded the council that first and foremost, it’s a commencement exercise. Of the 80,000 seats, 60,000 have been set aside for graduates and families. Other students, faculty, and staff who are interested in attending can get up to two tickets. If there are any extra tickets, they’ll be made available to the general public on Friday at 9 a.m. in the Michigan Union basement ticket office.

Teall asked Kosteva at what time the graduates would start assembling on Elbel field. Kosteva said that it would be as early as 6:30 a.m. However, even earlier – at 4 a.m. – floodlights will be turned on and instructions will be given to students, he said. [Instructions will be delivered via loudspeaker.]

The university has used a neighborhood email group as one of various means to alert neighbors around the stadium [emphasis added]:

Neighbors,

Undoubtedly you have heard that the University of Michigan is honored to have President Barack Obama as its May 1 commencement speaker. Hosting such a prestigious guest means some changes to our normal commencement plans to accommodate increased security.

Among these changes is the closing of all lanes of Main Street from south of Pauline to Stadium, from about midnight Friday April 30 to about 2 pm Saturday May 1.

In addition, our plan is to have graduates gather at Elbel Field starting at 6:30 a.m. We wanted to alert you that field lights will be on as early as 4:00 am and loud speakers will be in use for this gathering.

We apologize for any inconvenience these changes may cause and hope you will join us in congratulating our graduates on their achievements.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the university’s traffic control plan and to prohibit sidewalk vendors in and around the stadium area.

Parking: Allmendinger Park and UM Commencement

Part of the recommendations reported by Roger Fraser in his budget presentation included a plan to generate revenues by parking cars in Frisinger and Allmendinger parks. Allmendinger Park was also mentioned during public commentary by Alan Haber, who reported that a permit for demonstration in the park on the morning of May 1 had been denied by the city. The demonstration, called “Fulfilling the Dream,” is expected to draw hundreds of people, one of the organizers, Laura Sanders, told The Chronicle in a phone interview on Wednesday after the Monday council meeting.

Sanders works with the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, but the demonstration is sponsored by other groups as well, including Michigan PeaceWorks, American Friends Service Committee and One Michigan. The most recent group email sent out by organizers reads
in part:

Please pass the word about Fulfilling the Dream in Ann Arbor on the morning of May 1st, when President Obama is in town, and our trip to the Fifth Grand Peaceful March for Immigration Reform in Detroit in the afternoon. So far, the city of Ann Arbor has denied us a permit for Allmendinger Park, but we are looking into alternatives and will not give up! Please stay tuned for the exact location, and in the meantime, spread the word with the brief advertisements pasted below in both English and Spanish.

After Haber made his remarks, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that it was her understanding that something was being worked out.

However, Sanders told The Chronicle that as of mid-day on Wednesday, nothing concrete had been put in place to provide a place for the demonstration to be held. She said that six weeks ago her group had begun working with the city to find a way to hold the demonstration. Their efforts had included applying for a parade permit for Main Street past the Stadium, but that had foundered on the planned closure of the street.

A permit to rent Allmendinger Park had been denied, she said, with the city citing the park’s proximity to the stadium. They’d also asked a private property owner at Stadium & Prescott, who ordinarily rents out the space for football day parking, if they could rent the area for their demonstration. The property owner had agreed, Sanders said, but the city’s planning department had pointed out that the area is zoned residential, which prevented its use for a demonstration. Sanders said that they’d contacted Pioneer High School for use of the school property, but that effort had also not been successful in gaining permission for the demonstration.

Sanders said that there’d been indications in her communications with the city that “free speech zones” would be established in connection with the commencement exercises, but it was not clear where or how big they would be. The demonstration is planned to run from 9 a.m. to noon.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: May 3, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]