Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press has picked up on our FOIA request & five part series here in this piece. Here's a link to OutsideLansing.com where we take note of Dawson's piece, and part 3 of our series citing the political diversity issue.

For those of you who follow my miscellaneous national and topical interests like signature-gathering, and Ward Connerly's SuperTuesday, you'll also know that I follow First Amendment questions of whatever type. The Paul Jacob story hits all three. Connerly is helping a group in Oklahoma collect signatures as I write. Signature-gathering difficulties there are driven largely by politics - and although the people of Oklahoma are quite rational, their Attorney General and special interests seem to have figured out that out and realize they must hamstring the people.

Enter Paul Jacob. Like him or hate him and his efforts, he helped a group in 2005 in Oklahoma collect signatures for a version of TABOR (taxpayer rights initiative). Taxpayer initiatives are serious challenges to government and special interests because when taxpayers can say no and turn the spigot off - special interests and the "governmental class" (the army of people working for the government get to vote, and self-lobby, too) get mad. Mad enough to put people who threaten them in jail.

So, when Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson told a grand jury to indict Jacob earlier this year, they jumped. Grand juries would indict cinder block if told to, and even under the best circumstances, a grand jury indictment is under a standard of evidence that there is simply enough evidence to warrant a trial - not that anyone is guilty. Regardless, the indictment was for "conspiracy" to "defraud the state", a stretch of that charge based on the underlying crime of ... coordinating signature-gatherers who did not intend to live in Oklahoma forever. That is, using "out-of-state" signature gatherers invalidates a signature in Oklahoma (nowhere in the Oklahoma code however, could I find a law criminalizing out-of-state gathering, merely the AG interpretation that residency means someone must intend to live in Oklahoma forever). From the non-crime of not knowing exactly where one might live in a few years, and two years following the Oklahoma state court's "referee" refusal to place TABOR on the 2006 ballot, the AG indicted 3 petition drive leaders (with no indictments for any criminal circulator below them, another hard piece of logic to follow). Now clearly this all contrived to make all signature-gathering of any type more difficult, and to plant the fear of criminal prosecution in the hearts of petition-drive leaders.

But the AG made a technical mistake in his grand jury indictment, and misused the multi-county nature of that body, so he had to drop the charges. Yesterday, he reissued the charges under his own office's direct power of prosecution, and is going full-steam ahead.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, or libertarian (I guess if you're authoritarian, you should support the AG), you should take note of this case. It's about control and power. It's about suppressing speech and petitioning. Sure, reasonable rules can invalidate bad or petitions created in error - and although there is probably no compelling interest in state residency requirements even if there were, this case is one of ambiguity in law being used as a blunt hammer to quash dissidents. Even if you are an opponent of Jacob's views, to remain silent when his speech and petition rights are subverted is to invite the same to happen to you when you disagree with the establishment.

In all, this is probably the most important First Amendment case, and clearly the most important petitioning case to arise from the year 2007. Follow it closely. Prevent it from happening in your state. Blog it if you can. Write a letter to the editor if its relevant. And be careful when you travel through Oklahoma.

If it has to do with signature-gathering (particularly if not inside Michigan where one of my sister-sites will pick it up), its a subject ripe for PP&M. And this one is ripe - Ralph Nader has sued the DNC alleging a vast conspiracy (VLWC) by the Demoncratic National Committee to obstruct his ability to get on the 2004 ballot. Frivolous lawsuits, blockers, bogus challenge-phase assertions. The suit itself details some 90 law firms that participated.

This story, from the site "Ballot-pedia", which is a brilliant use of the wiki concept to map out a small universe of specialized knowledge, details it well and provides links to the original source documents and news stories.

Needless to say, while ZR doesn't normally subscribe to conspiracy arguments because they are too complex and usually not the simplest explanation, there is some validity to this one. The DNC didn't make it a secret that it wanted to keep Nader off the ballot - in fact, it admitted it was trying to do so. And various officials admit to using frivolous legal techniques solely to drain Nader. That's abuse of process, and Nader should recover something for it.

Paul Jacob, one of the principal forces behind the Term Limits movement and an architect of the recent TABOR drives, voluntarily submitted himself to Oklahoma authorities yesterday to be indicted by Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson. Jacob was indicted for helping bring non-Oklahomans into the state to petition for their Stop Overspending drive, which was thrown off the ballot in 2005 because non-Oklahomans allegedly were involved in signature collection and this allegedly violated Oklahoma's residency requirement, which is poorly and unclearly defined.

Jacob's story here.

Speaking from my experience with Michigan signature-gathering and management, its clear that opponents will throw everything they can at you. Don't think for a moment that exercising your rights in this arena isn't risky. This attack on Jacob is a fundamental attack against American liberty and self-government. It's meant to crush Jacob personally using the raw power of government and to scare the rest of us into inaction. Speaking to those forces - I, for one, am invigorated by your threats and the battle is on. In all my endeavors, I will strive to follow the law as it is, but I will not be intimidated by threats of misapplication of vague laws. To my supportive readers - if you can assist Jacob, please do so.

Bill Nowling at Lunchbucket Conservative has been pointing out the ties between Norman Hsu and Michigan's Democratic leaders Debbie Stabenow and Jennifer Granholm.

Democrats have taken a liking to continually beating on the Jack Abramoff scandal that is now a year in the past to point to Republican corruption. But here we have it in spades on the other side, straight from a Ponzi-scheme artist, Norman Hsu. First, Hsu is a bad guy, as the New York Times points out:

According to court records from the case, Mr. Hsu ran a Ponzi scheme that took in cash from dozens of investors and returned profits to some of them before shutting down with more than $1 million missing.

Now Hsu is accused of a political-Ponzi whereby he would act as conduit to evade campaign finance limits.

With RightMichigan also noting the additional money going to Michigan Committees. Stabenow has returned $4200 of the donations to a charity, but apparently hasn't donated remaining $27,000. The Michigan Democratic State Committee apparently accepted $35,000, and Granholm's gubernatorial committee over $13,000.

Obviously, candidates receiving such money aren't necessarily aware of crimes before they become known (bad that our system is such, but reality). But it would be hypocritical to continue railing on 10th degree of separation links to Jack Abramoff, as well.

And its also time to give it all back, ladies, and Mark Brewer.

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Time to revive an old ZR analysis of U-M data manipulation. Read that along with with last week's ZR exclusive on U-M administrative growth, and yesterday's piece by Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News who writes here about the statewide wave of tuition increases.

And guess who's allegedly to blame again - anybody but the administrators at the schools. The legislature isn't appropriating enough of your money.

Hammered by six years of state appropriations reductions, U-M has taken considerable cost-cutting measures, from motion sensors that activate lights only when someone's in a classroom to reducing the number of deans in the College of Engineering, said U-M Provost Teresa Sullivan. "But finding additional things to cut is getting harder and harder."

In 1960, state funds comprised nearly 80 percent of U-M's budget; now that's 24 percent, and tuition is the largest stream of revenue, she said.

"We are in a situation in which our state appropriation has been under considerable pressure," Sullivan said.

Wait, there hasn't been "six years of state appropriations reductions" - there have been six years where legislative appropriations have stagnated or modestly increased. More importantly, that quote on the 1960 comparison of "relative % of legislative funding" is an extension of the fabulous lie first perpetrated by former president James Duderstadt in the mid-90s, when he pointed out that U-M's 1986-1996 "share" of state funding as a percentage of U-M's overall funding fell from 18% to 12%, and blamed the legislature for the "cut". Sullivan deserves credit for the novelty of expanding the time-frame to 1960 to increase the magnitude by a factor. Still, ZR debunked the original horrible twisting of statistics which applies today, pointing out that U-M averaged 17% growth in administration over the same time while the legislature gave 8% more over the time. That's twice the rate of inflation (quadruple for expenditures and other revenues including tuition increases and federal sources) - the legislature lived up to its end of the bargain, yet U-M blamed it on them in the bustling 90s and still uses the same old saw today.

Although the Detroit News writer is doing the best she can with the beat she's assigned, the problem is when you're forced to take the word of U-M officials you're in for some surprises.

"Time and time again we've made the cuts and we've done the reforms," said Regent S. Martin Taylor, noting U-M has slashed $120 million in costs in five years. "We've done those things and then we recognized that (in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues."

Just last night State Senator John Pappageorge told a Rochester gathering a story. You go into your boss's office and ask for a $5,000 raise. After much discussion about your value and productivity, and the budget of the company, your boss gives you a $2,000 raise. You walk out of the office and tell your office-mates you just took a $3,000 pay cut.

In the University of Michigan shadow world of budgeting, an increase can be a cut. A look at the Provost's data reveals how words can be twisted - but ZR's favorite is when James Duderstadt tried to play the same trick in the mid-90s and ZR broke it down with this analysis showing that the decline was really an increase but decline relative only to outrageous 17% annual growth by U-M bureaucracy.

If U-M "cut $120 million" in expenses, it doesn't mean that it reduced its overall bureaucracy by that size. Either they cut a hypothetical $120 million that they might have spent in ideal circumstances, they cut something they were going to cut anyway or was at a natural end, they cut something but spent twice as much elsewhere, or any number of explanations. Regardless, I'd like to see the documentation of exactly what their cuts were, and methodology. And even if they saved a $120 million in future costs, its nearly a $3 billion dollar budget. Compare these explanations with last week's ZR statistical analysis of the last five years of U-M administrative growth.

Flip S. Martin Taylor's statement around. Instead of, "(in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues," it should be "to keep Michigan great, we have to decrease costs." Does it really matter whether a student pays for his university education in tuition - or through his or her parents and future taxes. It's just a shell-game either way. The key is to reduce costs and provide better value. And with the salary analysis ZR has done, clearly that isn't happening.

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.

Zarko Research again provides insight into the vaunted, but bloated, University of Michigan.

Like the ZR analysis of Michigan State University salary database trends over the last two years when it asked for a 9.6% tuition hike last week, ZR has been collecting U-M databases. An analysis of five year trend data provides a clear insight into why U-M tuition rates explode. There are 38,000 employees at U-M - and 3500 of them make more than 100K annually, a number itself that has an impressive growth rate.

The engorging is top-heavy - an outlandish growth rate among $100,000/year employees, percentage increases in the "Top 1000" by two measurements that are consistently in the 5% range (with a 7.5% average spike, and 20% total spending spike in 2001-2002, reflecting probably a "preparation" for bad times given the strong economy the previous year and the obvious signs of crisis down the road. But there has been no "crisis" for the purses and wallets of U-M bureaucrats, even as the Michigan economy has crashed. They keep churning out nickel increases while the Governor wants to appropriate extra pennies from the plebes to make up the difference.

Education is important. But out-of-check, unaccountable cost increases for top-level administrators do not guarantee any student a fair education. Check the tables yourselves. It's all there - or actually, its' all in Mary Sue Coleman's $600,000 (plus hidden benefits) salary. Imagine if that money went to students instead!

In a lengthy article by Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder in today's New York Times entitled, "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some", we find some interesting statements. The story reads like a news analysis infiltrated with opinion, as is clear from its biased title.

First, in California, we have school attorneys that have forgotten where they live. Check this Bayview school general counsel.

David Campos, the general counsel to the school district, said the resegregation was so disappointing that the school board might try to test whether Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion in the recent Supreme Court case left open the possibility of using race if other methods of integration fail.

“We stopped using race at some point,” Mr. Campos said. “And then for a number of years we have tried to use a number of race-neutral factors to achieve racial diversity, which methods haven’t worked. Should the board decide to use race, and they may or may not, we are a very good test case.”

Not only did Mr. Campos forget Proposition 209 would prevent his "test case" from even getting to federal court since it wouldn't be legal under state law, he seems to have the idea that he is entitled to experiment with our taxpayer money, and the quality of schooling students in the district receive (for if the school spends big legal bucks on test cases, it is distracting from and taking resources away from education). Indeed, Campos' belief that he is the arbiter of "test cases" is institutional arrogance. Public officials should generally avoid skirting the law or pushing its boundaries - "test cases" should arise from situations where an error or incidental encroachment is made - not where a public official decides to create a test case. Indeed, this is equivalent to a frivolous filing of a lawsuit, just in a less tangible and noticeable way.

As to the rest of this Times article, look at the title. "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some". At best, the conclusion is that it "Doesn't Desegregate Enough", not that socio-economic measures actually segregate. Their is pre-existing societal segregation - socio-economic solutions produce much more economic diversity, and are estimated to replace the (alleged) need for roughly 75% of racial diversity programs because of the pre-existing socio-economic racial imbalances. The article sort of recognizes that these are different scales and types of diversity, yet it attacks socio-economic programs for not being perfect (although helping) along one of the dimensions. Maybe socio-economic programs aren't perfect, but they are the best, and most moral, of types of governmental response, if there is to even be a governmental response, to such imbalances.

If perfection were the measure of any program, no program would be acceptable. Indeed, any program that seeks "perfection" is philosophically suspect by itself. Here, the Times and racial-criteria proponents equate "perfection" with "proportional representation". For there is only standard against which to measure "racial diversity" - does it match the relative population levels for that group. The idea that society would configure itself such that every region and school would exactly match that obliviates free choice, and as such is a utopian perfection that is philosophically suspect (and in my world view anti-utopian). Indeed, this is the fundamental hidden flaw of preferentialist-reasoning. Without even touching on its vast internal contradictions (for example, that black self-segregation is good or to be encouraged), it presumes a utopian world-view that is anti-freedom.

I am reminded of another sought-after-perfection from science fiction. "Resistance is futile."

In a time of fiscal crisis, the President of Michigan State University gave herself (or asked and allowed the Board of Trustees to approve) a 25% raise. And the Top 555 employees averaged at least 5.5% raises, while the rest of the school's employees averaged 3% raises. And the school's overall employee based increased, with 2% more total employees hired.

Zarko Research publishes here a listing of the 2005 "Top 555" employees, the 2006 "Top 555" employees, and the entire 11,000 employee database here (WARNING - 2MB in Excel Format), all obtained through the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In our Top 555 listings, we provide a series of statistical analyses to provide context. And the context is shocking when MSU is asking its students and parents to pay 9% more in tuition this year, and blaming it on lack of state legislative appropriation.

But if you think that's rough, wait until we post cross-year analysis of the University of Michigan databases, including its mammoth 38,000 employee structure.

Piling up disgusting irony upon irony, and heaping dirt on her own reputation, Governor Jennifer Granholm and others conveyed themselves disrespectfully in today's Detroit ceremony to "bury the N-word."

Let's begin with a premise. Burying the N-word from one's vocabulary is a good thing. I can't imagine using the word in a conversation, and condemn its use whenever it used (despite recognizing the stupidity of governmental efforts to crush its use).

But holding a mock funeral for a word is almost humorous. And if it was just that, it'd be fine. But the ceremony was heaped with calculated political manuring ...err, maneuvering.

Here, the Detroit News reports that our Governor chose to use the opportunity for political rhetoric, rather than wise self-introspection. Granholm said:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm, speaking today at a symbolic NAACP funeral for the "n" word, called for the burial of several other practices she said target blacks, including predatory lending, high insurance rates and Michigan's recent ban on affirmative action.

Michigan voters last year approved a measure that bans the use of racial and gender preferences in university admissions and government hiring and contracting. That effort was pushed by Ward Connerly, a businessman who led a similar successful initiative in California.

"We need to kill his efforts," Granholm said.

Granholm also called for universal health care and an end to the war in Iraq.

I mean, if you want to bury the N-word, it might be wise to stay focused on that. The health care and war issues are gratuitous pandering, and prove the Governor is nothing more than an opportunist. But in a double-entendre worth noting, she couldn't resist using her own murderous language in connection with Ward Connerly's "efforts". Sure, she's not advocating murder because she focuses on the efforts, but the entendre is disrespectful and distasteful, and the point clear. If Bull Conner said something about "killing" the "efforts" of a 60s black activist, the message would be clear. Granholm has clearly crossed a line of disrespect in our political culture - and in the process attacked 58% of her constituents. But it wouldn't matter whether it was 5.8% - the polarization of modern politics has been wrought by divisive, mean-spirited, and violent thug politicians like Granholm who choose to polarize. She has learned well from her KKK-defending Democratic Party Chair.

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.

In this in-depth report by the Sam Adams Alliance, a group that appears to be regionally-based out of Chicago, ZR is interviewed. This is one of those non-traditional sources that allows a greater interview depth, something we'd love to see more of from the mainstream media (whatever happened to the formal "interview-style" publication - even magazines have moved away from it?).

Regardless, since the interview was long, I have a couple of small quibbles or clarifications. For example:

The MEA, according to Zarko, did not relish the prospect of losing the Howell School System as a customer. "The MEA makes $400,000,000 in profit every year by selling health insurance plans to Michigan school districts, so naturally its leaders were upset by the Howell system's moves toward choosing another provider," says Zarko.

The interviewer gets it almost exactly right here, although I don't recall saying an exact number there. I believe I said it was hundreds of millions, and when asked for clarification, said some estimates suggested up to $400 million could be saved with the MESSA-system acting as a middle-man.

Additionally:

After sifting through and analyzing those couple hundred e-mails, Zarko started publishing them to his website. "When you use taxpayer resources to attempt to change the outcome of an election or bargaining process, that's illegal and improper," says Zarko. He then sent out a press release summarizing the information to the Howell system's press list.

My initial press release clearly stated that it was potentially illegal given the right circumstances, and certainly improper. I'm not a lawyer, and not certain their actions, most of which I have not yet seen email regarding, were illegal. I am certain they were improper.

Everything else seems to hit the nail on the head, and for those of you (even my opponents) with an interest in my process and method, this interview gives you some insight. I recommend that more citizens use this and other methods of keeping our government accountable.

I conclude with:

Zarko's last tip is not to be put off track by people who prefer secrecy over openness. "One of the MEA's objections is that I have an ideological bent against unions. That's not true. I do have an ideological bent against abuse of taxpayer funds, plain and simple."

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.