Ann Arbor’s Fifth Estate: The Citizen Journalists

Wherein a new television series is announced; scroll to the bottom for the schedule.

As I’ve written before, if you want to know the news about what is going on in Ann Arbor, you can no longer just pick up the newspaper.  You have to work harder, and mostly to go online.  We’ve listed a number of the available news sources.  But how can we really get to the core of issues and events affecting our city?  One option is to accept the help of some citizen journalists.

At a recent training workshop given by the Online News Association, we were told that “Ann Arbor is ground zero” for a new era in journalism.   Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute gave us a lecture describing what she and others are calling the “fifth estate”* .   McBride emphasized the rising importance of citizen journalism, including bloggers and other (non-professional) news and opinion gatherers.  This interest in citizen journalism is apparently getting stronger as traditional new vehicles like printed newspapers are falling by the wayside.  Another Poynter associate listed all the types of people who might be part of this “fifth estate” and characterized them this way: “a frame that sees that the freedoms and responsibilities of the First Amendment empower not just a professional caste of news gatherers and distributors, but potentially every citizen.”  As I have mentioned before, there has been increasing attention to this phenomenon.

Our workshop was indeed attended by a number of “citizen journalists”, grading into “real journalists”.  Several staff from AnnArbor.com were there, and Clarence Cromwell, a journalist who has a blog,  freethenews.net, about this very subject.  (He also has a print news publication forthcoming but no announcement yet.) Matt Hampel, one of the major contributors to ArborWiki, a maintainer and moderator of Arbor Update (a hotbed of fifth estaters if ever there was one), and the instigator of the Ann Arbor Area Government Document Repository,  attended the evening workshop. I was there (a citizen journalist-blogger) and so were quite a few of the “citizen bloggers” recruited by AnnArbor.com.  These included Linda Diane Feldt, Alice Ralph, Cathy Theisen, and a columnist,  Frances Kai-Hwa Wang.  I’m sure I missed several more who didn’t happen to sit at my table.  I am impressed by the effort that AnnArbor.com has made to recruit individuals from the community, with the leadership of Edward Vielmetti.  It is a rather odd mixture, with articles by professional paid staff followed by volunteer bloggers, but it is working to provide a mosaic of interest and perspective.

Why do we all do it?  Partly to fill a perceived need, I believe, and also because the software and easy linking has made it much more possible than in the days when publishing even a newsletter was a big production and expense issue.  I know that the reason I started “Local in Ann Arbor” was that I saw a need to document things I cared about, and to help start a discussion about them.

One of the most impressive local examples of this civic impulse is the new “Other Perspectives” series which is not online, but rather on television.  Nancy Kaplan, a Second Ward resident who has been an adult education teacher and physical therapist, started this series on CTN’s Channel 17 recently.  Here is her reasoning in her own words:

After the Ann Arbor News announced its closing, I was talking with friends about the forthcoming absence of the ‘Other Voices’ column. It seemed then that the News frequently took the perspective of the mayor and council and generally did not support change or welcome a differing perspective. So the idea came up of doing a CTN program that would fill that gap and provide for a more complete perspective on issues and thus the “Other Perspectives.”

Originally the show was to be co-hosted.  While this did not work out, a CTN instructor tutored and guided me through it all.  The program is crewed by volunteers.  I am fortunate to have a  great crew who have been with me for all the shows. The process requires getting a recording date that the crew and guests are willing to commit to. Recording is done in the evening after most of the crew and guests have put in a full days work.

I find the preparation for each show to be like doing a research paper.  I learn a great deal and get to meet some very interesting and community-involved people. My objectives are to discuss topics of interest and importance and to provide information that is well organized for the listener.

This town has a wealth of involved, knowledgeable and articulate residents. My aim is to interview these residents  on a wide range of topics from politics to the arts.  I hope the audience will become engaged and make suggestions as to topics and guests of their interest. I want the program to be informative, interesting, relevant, and, of course, open to other perspectives.

Her  initial one-hour program discussed the politics of Ann Arbor and city council. The second segment looked at the city budget and possible city tax.  Excerpts of these (September) programs are on the Other Perspectives blog. The current shows recorded on Friday,  October 23,  focus on the November 3 ballot issues.  One program discusses the WISD Enhancement Millage Proposal : Pros & Cons.  The second show has two segments: The Charter Amendments A & B— Vote No and  an interview with the 4^th Ward City Council candidate challenger  Hatim Elhady.

Here is the schedule:

Other Perspectives: WISD Millage – Pros & Cons

Premiere:    Tuesday, 10/27         7:30 PM

Replays:     Wednesday, 10/28    10 PM

Thursday, 10/29        2 PM & 7 PM

Friday, 10/30            10 AM & 8 PM

Saturday, 10/31         2:30 PM

Sunday, 11/1            1 PM & 8 PM

Monday, 11/2            2 PM & 6 PM

Tuesday, 11/3           1 PM

Other Perspectives: Ballot Issues  (First half, Dave Askins on charter changes; Second half, Hatim Elhady, candidate, 4th Ward)

Premiere:    Wednesday, 10/28    12:30 PM

Replays:     Wednesday, 10/28    10:30 PM

Thursday, 10/29        2:30 PM & 6 PM

Friday, 10/30            10:30 AM & 8:30 PM

Saturday, 10/31         3 PM

Sunday, 11/1            1:30 PM

Monday, 11/2            2:30 PM, 5:30 PM & 8 PM

*Note: This is a reference to the concept of the “estates of the realm”, first named during the era of the French Revolution as the clergy (First), nobility (Second), and commoners plus everyone else (Third).  Later, journalists were named as the “Fourth Estate”.

UPDATE:  I should have mentioned among the citizen journalists Julie Weatherbee, who has been doing a great service with her Arbor Update reporting on city council agendas.  Julie was part of a panel for the first evening’s discussion that also included Mary Morgan of the Ann Arbor Chronicle and Josie Parker of the Ann Arbor District Library.  The AADL website includes an update on many community issues and a couple of blogs.  It is difficult to place this between “citizen” and “professional” journalism since the Library is a public institution, yet Julie (also a library professional) made the point that the AADL led the way on this type of website for libraries.

SECOND UPDATE: A new print publication, The Bohemian, hit the streets on the weekend of November 14.  Its publisher, Clarence Cromwell, tells me that the November issue will be available (free) at a number of locations.  It will be a monthly and there will be a website, still under development.

THIRD UPDATE:  The Bohemian’s website is now up and going.

FOURTH UPDATE:  Local bloggers should be aware of new FTC guidelines about product endorsements on blogs.

FIFTH UPDATE:  The Bohemian has folded after 3 issues, according to a story on AnnArbor.com.

The Fog of Plans (I)

Here’s the scenario: you read a notice or receive an email that there is a public hearing/public meeting/open house/committee discussion/council vote coming up about The Plan. Do your eyes cross? Do you experience a sense of disorientation? Déja vu? If so, you are not alone. Over the last several years, Ann Arbor citizens have been bombarded with a whole series of new plans, most of which affect the way our city will grow or evolve in the future. This year alone, we are simultaneously considering A2D2 Zoning (downtown), A2D2 Design Guidelines, Area, Height and Placement zoning changes, and a consolidated master plan. Plus, there is a committee considering changes in R4C/R2A zoning districts and we are beginning to hear about new initiatives based on the just-passed Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update.

I call this the “Fog of Plans” (on analogy to the “Fog of War” ) because the pace of change and the many different details and considerations involved, the number of people and institutions involved, the implications and possible outcomes, make it difficult for individual citizens to keep up with all the different plans being considered, much less to read, consider, and appear at public meetings and hearings to give appropriate citizen feedback. As we discussed in an earlier post about plans, these can have serious implications for the future.

This post is the first of a series that will enumerate and discuss these plans.  Links to plans and other important documents will be placed on the Planning Page.  Today’s tidbits (bearing no resemblance at all to anything grilled) on the page are the different chapters of the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan Land Use Element, commonly called the “consolidated master plan”.

Here’s what the introduction says about this plan:

In 2007, City staff proposed consolidating the four existing area plans into one master plan document. One document could be updated more quickly and efficiently than updating four area plans. The consolidation would be the first of two major phases. The first phase consist of:
a) combining the substantive elements of all four area plans into one document,
b) updating the demographic information, and
c) creating new graphic material.
The second phase of the process would include the development of new land use recommendations for large sites and major corridors. Staff presented the concept to City Council in early 2007 and received direction to proceed. Extensive public involvement was involved with the creation of all four area plans. Two public hearings are included during the consolidation process.

The Planning Commission assigned the initial review of the draft plan to the Master Plan Revisions Committee. The committee reviewed and edited the document. The plan was then brought before the full Planning Commission for review. A public hearing was held to receive public comment on the draft plan. The Planning Commission approved the plan on May 5, 2009. City Council held a public hearing on the draft plan and approved it on June 15, 2009.

The timeline has changed since that last paragraph was written.  The Planning Commission did indeed hold a public hearing on May 5, but the city attorney’s office requested that the PC should pass a more explicit resolution than it did.  This happened on October 6, 2009.  One of the lines of the resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, The City of Ann Arbor Master Plan: Land Use Element will replace four area plans: South Area Plan (1990), Central Area Plan (1992), West Area Plan (1995), and Northeast Area Plan (2006), into one comprehensive land use plan which will facilitate regular updates;

Did you get that?  This plan will supercede four existing area plans.  And yet there has been very little opportunity for the public in these four areas to weigh in on any changes.  Traditionally, master plans are changed only after extensive public discussion.

Of course, that would not be needed if this were merely a collation of the existing plans.  But based on a brief scanning of the document, I believe that we will find many new policy initiatives embedded in it. Among other things, it has a freshly written vision statement that emphasizes transportation to a degree that at least three of the plans did not, and a series of goals and objectives.  It also includes policy recommendations like making the Lowertown area into a TIF zone that are worth some additional discussion.  Some of the implementation goals and actions sound a lot like what we have been hearing at the AHP meetings.  And yet the only opportunities for the public to have input are the Planning Commission public hearing and the Council public hearing.

Here’s a recommendation: look at least at the parts of the consolidated plan that affect you and the area where you live. If you are a “planwise person”, perhaps you even have a copy of the existing area plan.  (They are available on the city website.) Do you see anything that sends up a red flag?

Note that the citywide zoning map on The Planning Page has a great feature; with Acrobat Reader, you can blow up the section of the city where you live and check the zoning.  I noticed that a couple of parks in my area were not zoned as Public Land.

The plan is scheduled to come to Council in November.

UPDATE: After we posted the consolidated plan online, Planning found the time to reformat the document so that it is accessible.  It can be found by chapters on the Planning page of the city website.

SECOND UPDATE: The consolidated plan is on the agenda of the November 5, 2009 City Council meeting.  Recall that by custom, the “old” council has one more meeting after the November elections, after which the “new” council (just elected or re-elected) is seated.  A great time for mischief, as outgoing councilmembers have absolutely no motivation to kowtow to voters’ wishes any more.  I hope that the council has the grace to table it and also postpone the scheduled public hearing.  Right, a public hearing is scheduled.  Didn’t you hear?

The memorandum by Jayne Miller explaining the process and reasoning behind the consolidated plan is here.

City Place – Reborn?

If persistence is the key to success, Alex de Parry is certainly entitled to some. He has exasperated, astonished and at times enraged the Germantown neighborhood with his efforts to develop his properties there. Looked at from one perspective, he has accomplished a lot. The South Fifth Avenue area didn’t have a neighborhood association before he began submitting plans for a massive development there, and they didn’t have a historic district either. Now the neighborhood seems to have discovered itself and become cohesive, there is a historic study committee, and the area is definitely on the map with a name that it didn’t have before (Germantown).  But after nearly two years of trying, de Parry still doesn’t have a project.  Last night (October 12) he tried once again to reconcile the neighborhood to a plan for redevelopment.  Trouble was, most of the neighborhood and historic preservation advocates who have been tracking this process were boycotting the meeting.  When I arrived at Conor O’Neill’s Celtic Room on Main Street for the 5:30 meeting, de Parry’s attorney Scott Munzel was trying to get the reporter for AnnArbor.com (Ryan Stanton) to leave because it wasn’t a public meeting.  But Munzel shortly left, which was a good thing since reporters (Stanton, AnnArbor.com’s business reporter Paula Gardner, and I) were most of the audience.   There were two “observers” from the Germantown association who declined to answer questions or to participate much.  Otherwise, it was a golden opportunity for journalists to ask the questions.

There really was new information and a new vision.  A new architect who specializes in historic preservation and re-use has just been recruited.  John Dziurman did his best to present himself and his (only very new and preliminary) thoughts about the project to this odd audience.  I found Dziurman to be very credible.  He said a lot of the right things that supported his claim to be interested in true preservation of the existing houses as historic structures.  Dziurman is on the historic district study committee for his own community (Rochester Hills) and said that the first thing he looked at was what steps would be needed to satisfy National Register rules; he has already consulted with state officials.  His intent, he said, was to work toward the time when the study committee does succeed in establishing a historic district.  In other words, he is trying to anticipate the requirements that a historic district would place on the renovation and reuse of the existing houses at 407, 411, 415, 419, 424, 433 and 437 South Fifth. (See photos from the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s article that also describes the houses.)

Earlier PUD idea with façadectomized buildings

Unlike an earlier version of the PUD that would have involved “façadectomies” of the historic houses that would be pasted onto a new building, Dziurman’s concept would keep all the existing structures intact and integral, with renovation that is respectful of their historic nature.  He spoke of looking at each building’s history to find its “time of significance” and determine what its footprint was at that time.  (Presumably there have been various additions and modifications over time.)  He also mentioned choosing the exterior color according to the appropriate time when the building was most “alive” (my term).  I think that he was hinting that he will avoid theme-park colors. “I want you to see the homes just as they were.”

So if the houses are to be preserved in their entirety, how do we get a project with multiple housing units?  First, some of them will have to be moved up to the 19′ setback that one or two already have.  (Dziurman has already inquired about this at the state office – difficult for a historic building, but doable.)  Then two large multifamily buildings would be erected behind the houses.  The architect emphasized use of appropriate window geometry, etc. to make these compatible.  Also each of the houses will contain several units (as they do now), plus some “garden apartments”, meaning apartments set into the lower level (aka basement) of at least some houses.  All this is very much under development, since Dziurman only just came onto the job.  But de Parry says that there will be a total of thirty to fifty units, with lots of efficiencies, and some one, two, and three-bedroom units.  He is aiming for rental “workforce” housing and says there is a lot of demand for efficiency apartments right now.  At the meeting and in subsequent emails, he has indicated that his picture of future tenants is a mix of young professionals and older empty-nesters who will appreciate being near downtown, but not the more affluent people who are more likely to purchase condominiums downtown.  He has also ruled out six-bedroom apartments aimed primarily at students, as were mentioned in some earlier plans, saying that he heard too many objections to those.  “I’m not aiming to change the demographics of the area.”  All this plus underground parking, stormwater reservoirs and LEED-certified buildings (but geothermal may not be in the picture any more).

There are a couple of questions that bear on the success of this new reborn concept.  First, can de Parry regain the trust of the Germantown neighborhood?  It has been a rocky ride. The trajectory of the many different projects all called City Place is pretty tough to follow.  As helpfully listed recently by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the story began with a request for “conditional zoning”, rejected by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2008.  This was followed by the first Planned Unit Development proposal on May 20, 2008, also rejected by the PC.

The early high-density version of the PUD (image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Chronicle)

As most know, PUD proposals are popular development tools for making the most of a parcel, and that early one was  huge.  As explained by the Chronicle, it would have had 90 units with 164 bedrooms.  This was considered by the nearby residents to be doing violence to the very fabric of their neighborhood, and as we reported some months ago, a neighborhood organization was formalized in January 2009, after an early failure to get council to approve a historic district study committee,  and just as council voted down de Parry’s second attempt at a PUD.  But de Parry came back with an (apparently deliberately) obnoxious so-called “by right” development based on the existing R4C zoning.   This ball got kicked around for a while till council postponed action on it in July at de Parry’s request, though that resolution gave him the right to bring it back with a month’s notice.  The idea was that he could continue negotiations on a PUD (clearly his true wish).  Weary of the need for constant vigilance, neighborhood activists proposed (via CM Mike Anglin) a moratorium on any development in R4C zoning districts.  But in a surprise, council instead approved a historic study committee with a limited area.  This came with a moratorium on demolition in the 5th Avenue block under contention.  Suddenly, de Parry responded by bringing back the “by right” site plan which council approved grudgingly on September 21.  This move elicited a remarkably critical editorial from AnnArbor .com and exasperated head-shakes from everyone else.

So – shoosh.  Can we talk?  Here’s hoping that de Parry’s latest volley of historic preservation is for real. Obviously he still doesn’t really want to build that ugly R4C-based site plan.  Sometime he and his sincere new architect are going to have to make connection with the neighbors again, and figure out how to coordinate their planning with the historic district processes now underway.  When asked a pointed question about how he would fit his timeline into those processes, he was not really able to answer.  But he says that he hopes to have a new proposal by the end of the month (October??? I’m glad I’m not the architect).

Another question is simply the economic viability of the project.  Will the reduced number of bedrooms and meticulous preservation of historic structures, for which rents modest enough to qualify as “workforce housing” will be charged, be sufficiently profitable?  The actual rental amounts have not been stated,  but if young professionals like the Google employee recently profiled in Concentrate are going to rent those nice units, there will be an affordability problem.   According to HUD income figures and guidelines, the annual median income for single people in Ann Arbor (2008) is about $56,000; “workforce” is often defined as about 80% of the AMI, which is about $43,000.  Total housing expense of $1,076 is thought to be affordable at that income level.  Concentrate’s blogger, Kate Rose, is looking for something under $1000.  If everything works, de Parry’s new concept should fit her just fine.  I hope that they can afford each other.

UPDATE: Tom Whitaker helpfully pointed out that I should have said the standards to which renovation will be done are the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.  Mr. Dziurman did in fact reference these but I wasn’t familiar with them and didn’t want to take time to find supporting information, so conflated them with the National Register, which he also mentioned.  Thanks, Tom!

SECOND UPDATE: Alex DeParry sent out a press release announcing a new community meeting to display the revised designs.  Here is its text:

A neighborhood meeting will be held at 6:30 PM on December 14, 2009 at the Ann Arbor Public Library in the second floor meeting room. Preservation architect John Dziurman will present our “Heritage Row” plan that has incorporated community input and comments received at our previous neighborhood meetings and one that also meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

All seven of the existing houses will be rehabilitated and the existing streetscape will be preserved.  Our design for the rear of the site consists of three separate, free standing 3.5 story buildings similar in  scale to the “Washtenaw” apartment building located one block east on East William. Underground parking will be located on the rear of the site underneath the three new buildings. A plaza area will be  located behind the existing houses in the center of the site.

THIRD UPDATE: The project is now called “Heritage Row”.  They have a website.

FOURTH UPDATE: The Chronicle’s report on the roll-out of Heritage Row is here.

FIFTH UPDATE:  The study committee has now recommended a historic district and set projected boundaries.  See the AnnArbor.com account here.

NOTE:  An updated post (2011) is here.

Democracy, Drama, and the Ann Arbor Democrats

Family squabbles are never lovely, and the Ann Arbor Democrats are having one with all the usual melodrama, finger-pointing, and striving for dominance that these usually entail.

The blog A2Politico, with its usual flair for drama and color, has a rendering of part of the fight.  The tip of the conflict iceberg surfaced with an email sent on October 5 by current AADems chair Conan Smith, who is also currently representing District 10, NW Ann Arbor, on the Board of Commissioners. The email’s purpose was to announce the October 10 meeting.  For the knowledgeable, there were several red flags in it.

Smith ran for party chair last fall and won against retiring council member Joan Lowenstein.  His move at the time was widely seen as being related to his interest in running for Mayor in 2010.  Since then, he has made several attempts at reorganization of the city party, including changes in the way email notifications to members are delivered and a slate of officers who appear to be from a different party faction than those who served with former party chair Tim Colenback.  I have not attended meetings but have heard various complaints and accusations.  I can’t verify any of them one way or another but the resolution on the agenda directing one officer to deliver party materials to another was a clear sign of trouble.  As summarized in the first email, it was  “A resolution to ensure the smooth transfer of power between officers is offered, directing the current Vice Chair for Organizing to provide access to and control over the Party’s web domain, aadems.org, to the current Vice Chair of Communications within the coming week.”  (This conflict is spelled out in detail by A2Politico.)

I’m not going to try to adjudicate the claims and counterclaims in this matter, but the first thing that hit me was that any organization that has to rectify internal conflicts via a public resolution is in trouble.  These matters should be resolved within the Executive Committee and one job of the chair is to prevail in such internal arguments.

Who is a member? And who is an “Ann Arbor Democrat”?

Two other items on the agenda concerned me more.  They are bylaws changes that would allow the AADems to endorse in primaries, and to restrict who may vote at meetings.  These go to the very heart of the identity of the party and to its role in the political process.

First, as to the status of this group as the “Democratic Party”.  Technically, the AADems is a club, not part of the official Democratic Party.  That position is held by the Washtenaw County Democratic Party.  You will see the Ann Arbor group listed as the “Ann Arbor Democratic Club”.  The WCDP is part of the nationwide Democratic Party organization that ultimately sends delegates to the nominating convention to select our Presidential candidates.  To participate in the Democratic Party as an official organization, one must join the Michigan Democratic Party. By paying modest dues and attending the County Convention, one may vote on resolutions and for delegates to district conventions.  (There is also an election of precinct delegates on the Democratic Primary ballot.)  Through this organization, members of the State Central Committee are chosen.  This is the real mechanism of the party operation.

First, some disclosure about my own history.  I’ve been a “member” (more on that later) of the AADems since 1986, when I first arrived in Ann Arbor.  I was fresh from heavy political involvement in San Diego County, where I was the president of a Democratic club and a state convention delegate.  I immediately became involved in a couple of local races, Don Grimes’ campaign for US Congress (yes, the economist), and Seth Hirshorn’s second term on council.  (Both failed.)  And I got to know party members and to be involved right away, subsequently becoming Second Ward Chair for the 1992 election.  Since then I’ve served 8 years as a county commissioner, stepping down in 2004, and ran for city council in 2008.  Conan Smith ran a primary against me for my county commissioner seat in 2002 (I won) and endorsed my opponent for council (I lost).

So what is the purpose of the AADems?  It was formed to elect Democrats to the Ann Arbor City council.  It also has served as a grassroots organizing network and an opportunity to discuss issues that are important locally (but also to express opinions on important state and national issues).  It has a Ward-based organization (see the website) that originally served to put together a field organization for elections.  In the days before email and websites, much work in elections was done by foot.  When I was the Second Ward chair,  I made days and days of phone calls to find workers in each precinct who would carry literature and make phone calls to voters.  We carried literature for our state candidates and for Bill Clinton in his winning Presidential (general) election.  So the local club also served as an arm of the Party, often coordinating with campaign chairs through a headquarters that drew county and city party members and candidates together, especially in Presidential years.  It also maintained a sophisticated computer file of voting behavior of local voters long before those became available commercially.

But the first job was electing Democrats to council and as mayor. As we have noted, these races were competitive until about 2000.  The AADems raised money to put up advertisements for Democratic candidates and often published “slate” style advertisements for all Dems running for council seats.  Sometimes campaigns were even given a direct donation.  Party members were a tight-knit social group and dedicated workers.  For example, members sold hot dogs at Crisler Arena for many years to support the effort.  The in-group recruited candidates and sometimes discouraged others from running, avoiding primaries in many cases in order to focus firepower on the Republicans.  One of the prizes for being the Democratic candidate was being given a copy of the “activist list”, the contact list for all the active workers.  It was the job of the ward chairs to keep this current, and it was invaluable both for fundraising and for workers.  The party voter list products were also made available to nominees.

But this happy mechanism was in a sense a victim of its own success.  Over time, some candidates developed strong campaign organizations that did not refer to the party apparatus.  As we described earlier, after John Hieftje was successfully elected mayor as a Democrat, the council became a Democratic monolith and there was little electoral competition.  It has only been in recent years that such competition has returned – in primaries.  Because the party organization was prohibited from endorsing primary candidates, it was effectively sidelined.  It was probably in frustration with this situation that  Progressives of Washtenaw (whose website seems to have evaporated) was formed.  Tim Colenback was a member of this organization and is the originator of the resolution on the October 12 agenda enabling the AADems to endorse in primaries.  Not on the agenda, but a possibility given such endorsements, is that the AADems might then also raise money for those primary candidates. Smith is on record as favoring such a concept.

But if the AADems begins choosing candidates to win primaries, they are essentially attempting to bypass the electoral process.  In other words, they are attempting to substitute the club’s judgment for that of the voters. The point of primaries, after all, is to choose the party’s nominee.  Parties may also choose nominees by caucus or convention, but that is not our system.

Pair that with the other suggested bylaws amendment, and the endorsement mechanism is even more troubling.  As summarized by the email, “The second would restrict voting on party issues to individuals who have attended three of the last six meetings and would require the party secretary to maintain a more strict attendance record.”  (My emphasis.)  In other words, only the small group of people who attend regularly would be able to make the endorsements.  It suggests that the decision of who the “real Democrat” is in a primary would be made by a very insular group.

We often like to say that we are “small d” as well as  “big D” Democrats.  In other words, democrats (supporting democracy) as well as party members (supporting the goals and ideals of the Democratic Party).  I don’t know whether it can be argued that this bylaws change is big D or not, but it is certainly not small d.  The very nature of electoral politics should be that one has to make one’s case to the voters at large.

The bylaws change is especially troubling given the history of the AADems.  For many years there have been loud voices raised in protest every time any suggestion of a membership requirement was raised.  Unlike the Washtenaw Democratic Party, membership has never been required for voting.  The theory is that all Ann Arbor residents are members by virtue of just showing up.  (Oddly, the bylaws amendment also brings in people from the townships.)  Of course, this means that any faction or interest group can muster numbers to swamp a vote at a particular meeting, but that’s always the way it has been.  So this bylaws amendment, which is much more restrictive, flies in the face of a strong tradition.

I would propose that if some better regularization of status is needed, the AADems should install a membership system, whereby one signs an affidavit that one wishes to join the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.  It could even be renewable with an optional dues payment each year, and membership prior to a particular meeting could be required in order to vote.  That would allow the group to maintain a buffer against a mob action.

I haven’t attended meetings for quite a while, but I would be very sad if any of these resolutions pass.  I believe that they will make the AADems finally irrelevant in Ann Arbor politics.

UPDATE:  A source who was at the meeting reports that the matter regarding the control of the website was referred to the Executive Committee (who evidently had not been given a chance to address it previously).

The two resolutions regarding voting rights and endorsements were defeated.  Another resolution that rescinded a previous bylaw change so that no matters of substance could be considered by the Party during the summer months was tabled.

New elections for party officers will be held in the next couple of months.