Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

The folks at State Sunshine and Open Records blog, also operators of the fabulous "WikiFOIA," have posted their interview of me here. The interview gets into some of my ancient past FOIA history - something I don't go into much detail on here. I recommend reading their other interviews though and using the wiki tool -- the breadth of advice on FOIA there is astonishing and only likely to expand.

Eastern Michigan University Regent Jim Stapleton told WJR's Frank Beckmann this morning that they chose to fire EMU President John Fallon that they fired him Sunday to prevent him from using "an EMU forum," the Monday Regents meeting, as a forum to "attack the university." Furthermore, Fallon apparently sent emails or communications to the Regents suggesting his unhappiness - mostly revolving around a situation where the EMU Department of Public Safety (DPS) had allegedly covered up the existence of a dormitory murder. It is unknown clearly who and how many leaders knew of the cover-up.

Aside from the shocking murder cover-up, which may or may not have been simple bureaucracy-in-(non)-motion, Stapleton's explanation for the firing is absurd, hints at a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and reflects the overall attitude of leadership that lead to the larger international scandal that has erupted.

And international explosion it is. The Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom picks it up here (AP wire), the New York Times, the Detroit Free Press, and numerous other sources. Here the AP-Guardian piece:

The president, John Fallon, confirmed that he was fired Sunday evening by a unanimous vote of the Board of Regents, The Ann Arbor News reported in its Monday editions. Board secretary Jackie Kurtz on Monday confirmed the firing to The Associated Press.

Fallon told the newspaper that his termination letter was delivered Sunday night and did not state a reason for his firing. The letter said the board had voted unanimously to terminate his employment contract effective Sunday - two years after his five-year contract took effect.

``As a citizen, I am disappointed in this hastily called meeting, without any opportunity to be present or to respond,'' Fallon told the newspaper. ``I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.''

Look, it's not like firing him in a secret vote is going to stop him from speaking, or even speaking at an "EMU forum", since all he would need to do is attend the next meeting and speak in public comments. Let him have his out - and if he insults the board, obviously the relationship can't continue, then fire him. Give the public an opportunity to participate in the debate. This is why we have an Open Meeting Act, guys (and ladies).

The New York Times report pushes a bit deeper:

“We are committed to regaining the trust of all E.M.U. stakeholders, and all of the people of the great state of Michigan,” the board’s chairman, Thomas Sidlik, told about 200 people who jammed the regents’ meeting room today. “This board will not tolerate anyone who sabotages the educational mission of this university by participating in these destructive behavior patterns.”

Since Mr. Taylor was arrested and charged, Dr. Fallon has maintained that he was unaware of the crime and acted to the best of his ability. He was not specifically cited for wrongdoing in either of the reports but has been the primary target of parents’ and faculty members’ outrage.

The departures of Mr. Vick and Ms. Hall were agreed upon several weeks ago but not revealed until today. The board decided to terminate Dr. Fallon during a Sunday meeting by telephone after learning that he “may have been contemplating additional action that would have further damaged this university,” said James F. Stapleton, a board member who led the university’s efforts to investigate the handling of Ms. Dickinson’s death.

Mr. Stapleton declined to elaborate on his comment, saying that Dr. Fallon would probably make a public statement in the coming days. Dr. Fallon did not respond to messages left Monday at his university-owned home, which he has 60 days to vacate. The evening before his termination was announced, Dr. Fallon told The Ann Arbor News, “I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.”

Mr. Sidlik said in an interview, “There was a general falling apart of the relationship over the last few days.”

Dr. Fallon is the university’s second consecutive president to leave abruptly amid a scandal. His predecessor, Samuel Kirkpatrick, resigned in 2004 after it was revealed that the university paid $6 million — $2.5 million more than it had said publicly — to build a new home for him on campus.

All the elements of a culture of secrecy from the top down are there. And the elements of violation of the Open Meetings Act. And finally, note the suggestion in the comments section of the Chronicle of Higher Education story that the firing had motivations that went deeper - to the contract with the union Fallon recently negotiated.

ZR is probing this story further, as it represents a confluence of several issues.

The Lansing State Journal apparently is taking a world of criticism from State of Michigan employees for publishing a database of all 53,000 employees. The employees somehow feel their names should be excluded from the list and that the LSJ has violated their privacy. Here a media law student, Jane Briggs-Bunting, defends the LSJ, the LSJ defends itself, while here and here they are attacked and news story on the criticism, as they are in numerous letters to the editor.

This is just public employee whining, and while, in some cases these employees may be sincere in that they "feel hurt", LSJ has done nothing wrong. Part of democracy sometimes includes people, particularly government employees, accepting the consequences of their choices. Working for government is a choice, and the people are entitled to know who works for them, not just the job titles. Of course, one of the choices is whether to work for government. Many employees say they have "sacrificed" private sector opportunities to do so - perhaps they have, but if its too great a sacrifice then they should go into the private sector where 1) they have less legal right to complain about what their boss does 2) they might or might not make more money or benefits. While LSJ's subscriber base has a large number of government employees who live in Lansing, it is paramount that LSJ stand up for what is right despite the pressure it is facing. If it doesn't, it won't matter - someone else will publish it in their stead.

It has been said that there is no possible use to the public for the names us than "prurient" interest or to create dissent against government employee salaries and neighborhood jealously. So what? Even if the public is morbidly curious, or especially if it creates a concern about overpaid salaries, that is the public's choice and right. The public can decide for itself if the salaries are too high. For example, Zarko Research has been working on publishing a similar list for the 38,000 University of Michigan employees, with names. The top thousand employees salaries are simply offensive. Those officials should be exposed, with names, and how does one "draw the line" between which names should be disclosed and not disclosed, other than simply publishing them all. Sure, the janitors and teaching assistants are unpaid, but they themselves can use the collective and individual information for a strong public purpose - knowing whether they are paid according to relative worth and lobbying for fair pay (note, the public employees of the State also benefit in that way). Such information can be used to guarantee or prove racial or gender discrimination cases, another benefit to the individual employees. Finally, only with name linkages can a researcher or citizen cross-check campaign finance donations to the list and know how his government employees are lobbying his own government for whatever purposes. These linkages would allow one to find "out-of-place" patterns, such as patterns of low-paid employees making large donations to candidates (say a janitor donating the $3400 to the Governor).

Sure, individual government employees may not at first glance like their name and job title being published, but in the long-run its better for both the public and the individuals that we don't literally have a secret government. Who works for government and how much they make is among the most basic facts of government. If we can't know that, we might as well scrap FOIA and OMA and forget about democracy.

A google news search shows that no mainstream media outlet appears to have covered the change public comments policy at today's University of Michigan Board of Regents meeting. ZR chastises the media for its complicitly - although the public comments doesn't affect a media right (speaking is typically not done by the media), any assault on access rights is bound to come back and later hurt the media.

The Detroit Free Press first look at the Board meeting was this positive look at the two race-neutral scholarships the Board adopted to comply with Proposal 2. No doubt this was newsworthy, but as a capsule of the meeting woefully incomplete (both the stadium controversy and the Open Meetings Act issue must). It is possible we'll see more detailed analysis in the slower non-wire news cycle.

But in searching for open meetings issues, we found this interesting, now two-week old piece, about guess who? The MEA and a quorum of school board members illegally meeting in March over a teacher complaint.

Four Ypsilanti school board members violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act when they attended a March 8 meeting of teachers and staff who complained about then- High School Principal Layne Hunt, according to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office.

Criminal charges, however, will not be filed, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said in a memo released Wednesday to The News. Hiller wrote there is not enough evidence to prove that Amy Doyle, Andy Fanta, Cameron Getto, and Tom Reiber intended to violate the state law.

Hiller's nine-page memo dated June 5, stemmed from a meeting the board members attended at the Michigan Education Association's office on Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board. After much controversy at the high school, Hunt resigned as principal March 28.

It's nice to know a County Prosecutor got involved (that's one of the great things about the OMA, they do have that discretion although we rarely see it used), and that the ultimate outcome was two board members doing the right thing and resigning. Here, the MEA used its own offices, not to subvert FOIA but rather OMA. It's unknown as to whether Principal Hunt should or shouldn't have resigned, but its clear the pressure was on him, to the point of illegal secret meetings.

UPDATE on Ypsilanti secret meeting.

This Ypsilanti Courier piece gives us far more detail on the issue of the secret meeting:

Washtenaw County Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Steven Hiller ruled last week that a March 8 meeting with Ypsilanti High School teachers and staff who had concerns and complaints about then-principal Layne Hunt was in violation of the law.

Hiller said he would not prosecute the matter, however, because he could not prove there was intent to commit the violation.

In a nine-page memo, Hiller outlined the case against the four trustees, Amy Doyle, Andrew Fanta, Cameron Getto and Thomas Reiber, who attended the meeting after a communications snafu. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board.

Hiller then concluded the board members had broken the law by deliberating on the issue of firing Dr. Hunt. If the trustees deliberated and/or made a decision regarding the issue, the meeting would have been a violation of the OMA because no notification was given and no minutes were taken.

But, attendees at the meeting insist the session was for information-gathering only and no deliberations or discussions were held.

"It was for information-gathering purposes only," insists Kelly Powers, president of the Ypsilanti Education Association. "That's what they [the trustees] said at the beginning of the meeting and that's what happened. They listened and took notes."

Big things come in small packages. One of the great things about little newspapers is they cover their local stories in better detail than the regional newspapers we are all accustomed to seeing. And the internet finally picks most of them up now.

You have to love that Orwellian spin coming from Kelly Powers, of the YEA (Ypsilanti Education Assocation). "Information-gathering purposes only". "Deliberations" on the other-hand is a pretty big thing to define. I suggest that if you gather information - or prostrate yourself in front of a union leadership group who is feeing it you your daily dose - you are deliberating (perhaps in a non-meaningful way, but ... ). Deliberating is the act of working toward a decision. Collecting information is a vital and integral component of working toward that decision. The difference that YEA alleges is superficial.

The reason we have an open meetings act is so that no "special" (interest) sub-set of the population has secret access to our public official in the decision-making process. The Michigan Education Association, NEA, and its satellites (HEA, YEA, etc), fight long and hard for their special privileges and access. And whether its unions or corporations, it's time to say no more.

David Boyle, a liberal Democrat who has fought in favor of race preferences but is now fighting the University of Michigan Athletic Department's expansion and commercialization of seats (luxury) at the historic Michigan Stadium, has sent me this hat tip. While ZR takes no formal position on Michigan's move to change the feel of the Stadium, we sympathize with the treatment and strong-arming of those who have objected. As usual, Michigan "leaders" have ignored public input and engaged in tactics to avoid debate and public engagement.

The University of Michigan Board of Regents, a body dominated 6-2 by Democrats, is considering a policy change on its public comments rules. The plan is to reduce the number of comments from 12 maximum to 10 maximum - retaining the 5 minute limit per person. They've also added a clause that gives priority to individuals who have not spoken to the Board in the previous two months.

This is yet another disgusting, anti-Democratic move by an administration and institution that seeks every bit of control and governmental edge it can obtain. Reducing public comments is just a visible symptom of the large disease infecting the university's administrative process.

The Michigan Open Meetings Act would seemingly come to the rescue in such a situation, and it may, but its not entirely clear. MCL 15.263(5) is the key section of the OMA here:

(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.

U-M would argued that its established rules (which now require a 24 hour advance sign up and max out 12 "first-come, first-serve" speakers) are recorded, and that's the end of the story. A variety of common-law requirements however, including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, require such policies to be reasonable. For example, what if U-M kept lowering the number of speakers, in a "slippery slope", say to 8 then 6 or 1? What number is reasonable? Obviously a policy that allowed zero people to speak would be illegal, and a policy allowing say, only 1 speaker per meeting, would be unreasonable. 12 speakers - the current policy - seems to ZR to already be an unreasonably small number for a statewide body with a constituency of 7 million registered voters and thousands of out-of-state alumni, donors, and stakeholders.

Another consideration here would be the plain word and grammatical reading of section (5). Is not the phrase, "A person shall be permitted to address a meeting ...", even if under rules, not clear in its requirement that any person seeking to address a meeting entitled to address the meeting? It would seem that even the current U-M rule restricting the number of speakers to 12 is in violation of that requirement. While the law would seem to allow the public body almost complete flexibility in such things as time limits and other rules to insure order, it would seem that any restriction on number would violate the rights of persons to address a meeting.

If anyone has 11 people who want to speak at the next meeting, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge to set up!

Whether you're on the left like David, an opponent of race preferences like myself, or of any logical political stripe, you can find solace and agreement with David's new website, Fire Mary Sue Coleman.com. While that would be nice start, we'd note that the administrative beast that is U-M is much broader-based than its figure-head and it is only a short-term fix.

The Livingston Argus is reporting through "sources" that the secret deal between the Howell Education Association and the school bargaining team representatives essentially saves the district nothing.

Sometime soon — perhaps next Monday night — the Howell school board will vote to ratify a three-year contract with its teachers.

As with most such contracts, the details won't be revealed to the public until after the labor agreement is approved.

But if there is truth to the rumors that have leaked out about the contract, we have to wonder why the board waited a full year before signing this deal. In the final analysis, it doesn't appear that the district gained much by digging in its heels.

According to a number of off-the-record sources, there are several key parts of the contract:

# The expensive MESSA-administered health insurance remains.

# Teachers, who up until now have paid nothing toward their premiums, will now be assessed a modest amount: $600 retroactively for the year just ending and $750 for next year.

# Raises are small — a percent or less for the first two years of the contract. But remember that the majority of teachers also receive experience — or step — increments, which means their pay will increase by about 5 percent a year.

If these contract features are true — no board, administration or union spokespeople will comment — then the management in Howell schools has decided not to take a hard line in negotiations. That's too bad. For if there were ever a time to hang tough, this was it.

Zarko Research suspects the Argus is correct, although we have no way of verifying it and it may or may not be a rumor that is being spread for some other reason.

While ZR doesn't advocate a "hard line," it believes fair (obviously that has hugely variant meaning) concessions should have been made on both sides and that the Board should stand on principle, and this appears to be a one-sided deal as the Argus recognizes. If the Board was right in February and there was a budget crisis necessitating its February actions, then reverting to and accepting a pre-February offer by the union proves the Board either lied then or is lying now about the fundamental fiscal position of the school. Either it had the money then to accommodate the union's requests, or it didn't. Either the future fiscal crisis of exploding health care costs is serious, or it isn't.

This is a great reason why all collective bargaining agreements should be public. Indeed, not just the final agreement, but make the meetings open. While FOIA might seem a fruitful way of getting at it, case law on the issue is confusing and FOIA would allow enough of a delay through its normal response time that it wouldn't be productive in most cases anyway. The legislature must act to reform the Open Meetings Act and FOIA to prevent this kind of secrecy. The public has a right to advance consideration of any proposed final contracts - we're not even talking about events pre-dating the final agreement here. Indeed, the entire collective bargaining process should be subject to open meetings. When you negotiate with the taxpayer for money, the taxpayer should be able to watch. Period. It's simple. It's obvious.

Someone blinked - but the School Board can still stand up for what is right.