You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 5:13 p.m.

Proposals A and B on city ballot misleading, go too far

By Letters to the Editor

When I heard that the city was looking to save some money by publishing notices online, I thought it was a great idea. I pictured notices being posted to the city Web site, where residents could opt-in to have all new posts emailed to them.

Given the budget crises across the nation, anything that saves money seems to be a good idea. All of these good feelings came screeching to a halt after actually reading the proposal, which states: “or by posting to the City’s website or by any other means or method determined by City Council appropriate to properly inform the general public in matters of municipal concerns” The carte blanche phrasing brought a chill to my bones. This charter amendment goes too far, giving the City Council unchecked authority to publish notices however they see fit. One might think I am overreacting. Believe me, I am not.

I grew up in Dundee, a small farming community 20 miles south of Ann Arbor. Well, it was a small farming community. You might be more familiar with Cabela’s, which essentially defines Dundee now. One might think: What a coup for Dundee! What a great catalyst for growth! At least, that was what the Village Council was thinking when they used lawyer-client privilege to circumvent right-to-know laws. In fact, they were able to hide the deal until the ink was dry. At the announcement, the Village President commented that officials had been nervous about the deal for six months. Many longtime residents were furious. They knew they would be losing the small-town atmosphere that they loved. While the use of lawyer-client privilege was completely legal, the actions of the village council were sneaky at best. The council was able to completely change the make-up of the town, without ever informing the public. I bring up this example because I believe in the public’s right to know. There are already enough loopholes in the system; look at what happened in Dundee. The Ann Arbor City Council has already shown that they cannot be trusted to be transparent: think of the emails mocking concerned citizens and other council members. In fact, those secret emails have led to a lawsuit against the city, which will be defended on the taxpayer’s dollar. We should not give the council any more power than they currently have. And, we definitely should not give them open-ended authority in regards to the public’s right to know.

The language of the charter amendment presents a slippery slope. Ann Arborites should tread with caution. Janelle Baranowski Ann Arbor

Comments

brad

Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 2:06 p.m.

I will vote no for three reasons. This is a long-term solution to a short-term problem. By July 2010, AA.com will be in print for a year, so the city can resume publishing with the "newspaper serving our community". In addition to all the reasons you stated, the mysterious and mercurial properties of the web are not proper for formal public announcements. Could the city simply change it's website and claim the notice was posted? With a physical 3rd-party record, that prospect is less likely to succeed. Last, cost/benefit. The city might save a few thousand a year. That's not enough to outweigh the risks stated above.

Arboriginal

Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 12:58 a.m.

Amen!