tbreport

(Posted May 4) Having set a new all-time record for Michigan park visitations in 2015, could things actually get better for the state’s iconic Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore?

Well, maybe the naming of a new superintendent with impeccable credentials, brand-new from the West Coast. He’s Scott Tucker, who for the past the three years has been superintendent of the Lewis & Clark National Historic Park in Astoria, Oregon.

Sleeping Bear reeled in 1,535,633 visitors last year, breaking the previous record set in 2012. Sleeping Bear drew more than double the number who made the trip to runnerup Pictured Rocks in the Upper Peninsula, and well ahead of Michigan’s other gems — Keweenaw, River Raisin and Isle Royale. Maybe that’s because Sleeping Bear won a national contest sponsored by TV’s “Good Morning America” in 2011 as “Most Beautiful Place in America.”

A 19-year veteran of the National Park Service, Tucker will arrive in June to take over the running of a 35-mile stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline, plus two islands, covering 71,000 acres in the northwest Lower Peninsula. In the Pacific Northwest, Tucker’s demesne covered seven units along the Columbia River and the Pacific Coast from Long Beach, Washington, to Cannon Beach, Oregon.

“I am pleased to welcome Scott to the Midwest Region,” said Midwest Regional Director Cam Sholly. “He has a proven record of working closely with communities and partners.”

“My family is thrilled to be moving to northern Michigan and eager to make a connection with both the park and the community,” said Tucker. “Sleeping Bear Dunes and the state of Michigan are already in our family photo album, and we look forward to making many more memories there. I am excited to help the park continue protecting the amazing resources to the next generation.”

Prior to Lewis & Clark, Tucker served for five years as the Park Manager of the President’s Parks in Washington, D.C., where he had responsibility for the 54 acres of NPS property adjacent to the White House, including the Ellipse, on which the Washington Monument stands. In that position, he navigated complex partnerships and fostered relationships with multiple federal agencies and private entities.

Prior to working at the White House, Tucker spent five years at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian, where he created the Visitor Services program, planned for the grand opening in 2004, and contributed to ensuring that Native American voices were represented in all public interactions and programs.

Tucker has also worked for the National Mall and Memorial Parks in Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, also in D.C.; and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park in Skagway, Alaska.

Originally from Colorado, Tucker has a bachelor’s degree in Social Science from the University of Northern Colorado, with minors in history and archaeology. Tucker will be moving with his wife, Josephine (Josey) W. Ballenger and their 8-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter. Josey Ballenger is a writer/researcher/investigator for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the auditing arm of the U.S. Congress.

*******************************************************************

(Posted April 29) Michigan’s three top political leaders scored poorly in a pair of polls released this week. Gov. Rick Snyder and U.S. Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow all fall short of “meeting the mark,” any way you look at it.

Political insiders across Michigan increasingly feel that Snyder’s ultimate legacy will be “irreparably damaged” by the ongoing Flint Water Crisis. That’s according to a survey conducted by Resch Strategies/Denno Research of Michigan political experts, pundits and members of the media. The survey was emailed to 100 potential respondents on April 14, and 82 responded by the close of the survey on April 15.

When asked “Knowing what we know now about the water situation in Flint, what will Rick Snyder’s legacy be?” 60% think Snyder’s legacy will be “weak” or “pretty bad.” Only 2% of those responding think his legacy will be “strong,” and 34% think his legacy will be “decent.”

Back in February, the “pundits” were asked the same question, and it’s clear that as time passes they are becoming less optimistic about Snyder’s lasting legacy. Those who think his legacy will be “positive” or “decent” has fallen by 10% during the past two months. At the same time, pundits who feel his legacy will be “weak” or “pretty bad” has increased by 10%. A full list of the 100 pundits can be found at www.thepunditpoll.com.

Also this week, freshman U.S. Senator Gary Peters was revealed to have the lowest approval rating of any U.S. Senator. His senior colleague, Debbie Stabenow, did better, but not by that much considering that this is her 16th year in the body, and she’s been a member of Congress (Senate as well as House) for two decades. That’s according to Morning Consult (MC), a media and survey technology company based in Washington, D.C., which polled more than 62,000 voters across all 50 states.

At 38% approval, Peters ranks at the bottom of all 100 senators. MC notes that over a third of all respondents did not have any opinion of Peters. The news wasn’t all bad for Peters — his disapproval score was 28%, which ranked him somewhere in the middle of the pack in the senate.

Stabenow scored 48% approval — 10% higher than Peters — but that placed her 63rd out of all 100 senators. Her disapproval score was relatively better — 34%, which meant all but 18 senators were viewed more unfavorably than she was. Overall, both Peters and Stabenow have stayed fairly consistent since MC released its last ratings in November, 2015.

Among other findings in the MC survey: Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is still the most popular senator in America with an approval rating of 80%.

Other senators didn’t fare so well — Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) took a hit. His approval dropped five points to 45%, and his disapproval increased eight points to 41% Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is doing better — his approval went up three points to 55%, and his disapproval went down to 30% since last November.

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains the most disliked senator among his own constituents — his disapproval is 49%. Only he and Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have higher disapproval than approval ratings.

Amazingly, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is currently facing indictment on corruption charges, saw his ratings improve by five points since November while his disapproval dropped four points.

Morning Consul’s rankings were calculated from interviews with 62,288 registered voters across the U.S. in a weekly online poll between January of this year and April 17. Voters were identified based on their zip codes and other factors. Each state’s sample was weighted based on gender, age, and race, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Sample sizes varied from state-to-state, from 5,456 registered voters in California to only 157 registered in Wyoming. Margins of error varied, but in the case of Michigan, it was + or -2% in a sample size of 2,510.

################################################

(Posted April 28) Maybe, and apparently it will take a federal judge, or court, to decide the question.

The president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, Ron Bieber, has called a new law passed by the Michigan Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Snyder “unfair, unconstitutional and downright un-American.” Four unions, including Bieber’s, have filed suit in Michigan’s Eastern District Federal  Court to block a provision in Public Act 269 of 2015 that bans corporations from administering a PAC payroll deduction program for any PAC not their own, or for an association PAC of which the corporation is not a member. Practically speaking, the new law bans a corporation from administering a PAC payroll deduction program for a union PAC like the ones Bieber utilizes.

Unlike federal law, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (or MCFA, a post-Watergate reform passed in 1976) does not require a corporation to administer a union PAC payroll deduction program at the state level if the corporation administers such a program for its own corporate PAC.

The unions should be happy that their draw of a judge assigned to hear the case is Linda Parker, an appointee of President Barack Obama, named to the bench in 2014 after stints as a Wayne Co. circuit judge and as director of the Michigan Dept. of Civil Rights under Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Parker succeeded the retired Robert Cleland, who had been appointed by a Republican president.

If Parker rules in favor of the plaintiffs (the unions), it will be interesting to see whether Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (the defendant in this case) will appeal Parker’s decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where she (and the state) might get a more favorable verdict. Earlier this year, Johnson did NOT appeal a decision by another federal judge, John Corbett O’Meara, to temporarily stay another law passed last December that prevented local officials from providing information on local ballot proposals. Now Johnson and local governments have reached an agreement that O’Meara has accepted in making his injunction permanent.

Here are some issues the courts will look at to determine whether PA 269 is unconstitutional, if not “un-American”:

1. Prior to 1994, the MCFA was not necessarily “fair and balanced.” There seemed to be a double standard in the statute. On the one hand, corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, were banned in Section 54 of the MCFA from using corporate treasury funds to make contributions to state and local candidates and political party committees. Corporations were also banned from using corporate treasury funds to make independent expenditures. On the other hand, labor unions could make political contributions to state and local candidates and political parties from their union treasuries, comprised of mandatory union dues money. Labor unions were also permitted to make independent expenditures from union dues in support of or in opposition to various candidates. Labor unions, prior to an alteration of the MCFA under Gov. John Engler and a Republican-controlled legislature in 1994, were not even required to have a separate segregated fund. Evidently, the unions felt this was when the law was truly “American.” In a related development, four years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce had rejected a claim by the Chamber that Michigan’s MCFA represented “disparate treatment” of corporations and labor unions, with the corporations getting the shaft. The unions liked this, too. However, later, in 2010, in the now-famous Citizens United decision, the high bench reversed its 1990 Austin decision for 1st Amendment (free speech) reasons.
2. In 2013, the feds’ 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bailey v. Callaghan, turned aside a challenge by a teachers’ union to another Michigan law that had been enacted the previous year, also by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Snyder. This law, PA 53 of 2012, was passed after the Michigan Education Association had spent a lot of money to recall state Rep. Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc). PA 53 made such a recall less likely to happen in the future by prohibiting teacher unions from collecting dues via payroll deduction. Interestingly, that new law might have gone even further, but didn’t — it allowed other public employers like police and fireman to continue to collect union dues through payroll deduction as well as clerical unions like AFSCME and SEIU to do the same. The new law also did not prohibit the collection of union dues using payroll deduction for the six unions that represent Michigan state employees. PA 53 survived the unions’ legal challenge in the 6th circuit because the court said the law needed to be evaluated only on a “rational” basis, i.e., that the issue could be resolved by the political/democratic process, not the courts. In other words, the court’s Bailey decision said PA 53 didn’t stop teachers’ unions from collecting dues, but whether they could do it via mandatory payroll deduction was a decision the Michigan legislature had the right to determine.3. Back in 2005, the Michigan Dept. of State, in an interpretive statement, said a corporation that provides a labor union with payroll deductions to collect union PAC contributions has, in effect, made an in-kind contribution to that labor union PAC. Such an arrangement, the Dept. went on to say, is a violation of of Section 54 of the MCFA, which bans corporate contributions, UNLESS the union PAC reimburses the corporation for the costs it incurs in administering the payroll deduction program for the union. Reimbursement would “cure” the violation, said the Department. But the Michigan Supreme Court, in 2011, ruled that reimbursement “curing” didn’t do the job — reimbursement would henceforth be banned. That as much as anything gave the Michigan legislature a rational basis for enacting PA 269 of 2015.

   4. The AFL-CIO challenge to PA 269 raises the issue of “impairment of contract,” relying on the argument that the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions do not allow a government to intrude into and change a private contract, and that PA 269 constitutes precisely such an invasion. But a case known as Toledo Area AFL-CIO v. Pizza, decided in 1998, is 6th Circuit precedent for finding that if a labor union and corporation have a contract whereby the corporation agrees to administer a union PAC payroll deduction program, the prohibition found in PA 269 can go into effect — but only after the expiration of the contract, and then it can.

However the legal challenge against PA 269 is decided, the next question is what the litigants will do next. Depending on whether one side wins or loses in Judge Parker’s court, will there be an appeal to the 6th Circuit? And, after that, to the U.S. Supreme Court? If it’s the Secretary of State who might be doing the appealing, will she “punt” as she did in the “gag law” ruling by Judge O’Meara this week? The reaction to O’Meara’s injunction by the GOP-controlled legislature is likely to be muted between now and the Nov. 8 general election, but let’s see what happens in a “lame duck” session at the end of the year.

In other words, it’s going to take a while longer to decide not only what is unconstitutional, but also “un-American.”

****************************************************

(Posted April 24) Among all aspirants in open (non-incumbent) races for various Michigan judgeships this year, two get the top prize — John Economopoulos of Escanaba, an  attorney in private practice, and Macomb Co. Probate Judge Carl Marlinga.

How so? Well, each is running UNOPPOSED for a full six-year term on a Circuit Court with no incumbent and no competition in sight. That’s unusual, to say the least. Usually, there are multiple candidates whenever a seat opens up for any court in Michigan — be it appeals, circuit, district or probate. The best example this year is the 16 candidates running for four open (non-incumbent) seats on Wayne County’s 3rd Circuit bench.

Both Economopoulos and Marlinga have suffered some recent reversals in their attempts to get elected. Econompoulos lost a race for a Delta Co. district judgeship two years ago, although he was one of the two general election finalists. But now a sitting Delta Co. circuit judge is retiring, and Economopoulos finds himself unchallenged in his bid to succeed the incumbent.

Marlinga had early success as a five-times elected Macomb Co. prosecuting attorney, but then he lost a challenge to U.S. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Harrison Twp) and wound up having to beat criminal charges a couple of years later. After several years in private practice, Marlinga rebounded to get elected to a Macomb Co. probate judgeship in 2012 and now, with a new, open seat on the circuit bench in the offing, he’s drawn no opponents.

Barring write-ins, which won’t happen, color this duo “elected.” In judicial electoral politics, even with a setback or two it pays to keep on keepin’ on.

*********************************

(Posted April 24) Now that the April 19 filing deadline has come and gone, there are a lot of candidates running for a lot of offices in Michigan. In fact, over 8,000 of them, more than in any other state in the country, right down to the level of township trustee and local school and library boards.

Among this mix — although the electorate is largely unaware of it — are judges.  Michigan is a state that elects its judges, even if we don’t know who they are.

When Michigan voters go to the polls this year, they’ll find 140 judgeships up for grabs throughout the state. It’s not just the two seats on the ballot for the Supreme Court, but also six for the state Court of Appeals, 80 for circuit court, 64 district court judgeships, and 11 on the probate bench. That may seem like a lot, but this is actually a “down” year in quantity — the 140 total is the LOWEST number since 2010.

Which brings us to the question — has the number of female candidates peaked? Well, yes, at least temporarily. The percentage of all woman candidates running this year for the 140 seats is about 34.5%, which is slightly  higher than the last two election cycles but not as high as 2010 or 2004. In sum, this is likely to be the sixth-highest numerically (at least 91), and the fourth-highest in percentage terms for female candidates in all of Michigan’s judicial electoral history.

Here’s the recent historical record:

TOTAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATES STATEWIDE

264 (male and female) in 2016; 319 in 2014; 376 in 2012; 240 in 2010; 365 in 2008; 355 in 2006; 269 in 2004; 414 in 2002; 352 in 2000; 246in 1998; 406 in 1996; and 390 in 1994.

TOTAL WOMEN JUDICIAL CANDIDATES

91 (pending Supreme Court nominees chosen later this year) in 2016; 103 in 2014; 111 in 2012; 86 in 2010; 102 in 2008; 100 in 2006; 93 in 2004; 88 in 2002; 91 in 2000; 60 in 1998; 80 in 1996; and 87 in 1994.

#################

By Bob LaBrant, Senior Counsel at the Sterling Corporation

(Posted April 20) April 1, 2020 is the next census day in the United States. We are now less than four years away from the 24th decennial head count in our nation’s history. Data from the 2020 census will be used to redraw Congressional, state senate, state house, county commissioner, city council and court of appeals districts across Michigan.

MICHIGAN CENSUS

2015 census estimates indicate that Michigan has experienced very modest population growth. That’s in contrast to the 2010 census, which showed Michigan to be the only state to actually lose population over the previous decade. Michigan was estimated in 2015 to have 9,922,576 residents. Wayne County experienced the second greatest population loss for a county in the nation last year (only Cook County in Illinois had a greater loss). Most of the population growth in Michigan this decade has been in west Michigan. In 2014 the U.S. Census Bureau said North Carolina surpassed Michigan in population making the “Tar Heel” state the ninth largest. Michigan has slipped to tenth.

Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Minnesota are now projected to each lose one congressional district in 2022. Florida, Texas, Oregon and North Carolina are expected to each gain a congressional seat next decade.

HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING IN MICHIGAN

The high water mark for Michigan’s Congressional delegation came after the 1970 census when the state was awarded 19 Congressional districts, beginning in 1972; that lasted 10 years. After the 1980 census,Michigan lost one seat (18 total). After the 1990 census, Michigan lost two seats (16 total). After the 2000 census, Michigan lost one seat (15 total). After the 2010 census, Michigan lost still another seat (14 total). With Michigan’s Congressional delegation expected to slip to 13 in 2020, that will be the lowest number of Congressional districts in Michigan since 1912. During the 1920s Michigan’s Congressional delegation size stayed at 13, because the Congress failed to reapportion the 435 Congressional districts following the 1920 census. The 1920 census showed for the first time more people living in urban areas than rural.

On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by a 5-4 decision upheld Arizona’s use of an Independent Redistricting Commission to draw Congressional district boundaries instead of done by the state legislature as provided for in Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

REDISTRICTING REFORM IN MICHIGAN: CAN IT HAPPEN?

After that decision, the League of Women Voters of Michigan embarked last fall on a series of local educational forums where attendees were schooled on the evils of gerrymandering and alternatives to having the Michigan legislature draw Congressional and state legislative districts. The League focused on the model of an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). A consistent feature of the IRCs found in California, Colorado and Arizona is that districts are drawn following a series of regional public hearings to identify “communities of interest” that needed to be incorporated into district boundaries. What the League didn’t tell their attendees was the investigative reporting done by Pro Publica in 2012, which told the story of how Democrats in California and Colorado gamed the IRC system by “reverse-engineering” the map they wanted to see adopted. Democrats and their progressive non-profit allies then packed the regional public hearings, giving individuals and groups talking points for testimony before the Independent Redistricting Commission and demanding that district lines be drawn in a specific way in order to protect their “community of interest.”

The Detroit Free Press editorialized aggressively for the League to lead a petition drive to amend the Michigan Constitution providing for redistricting “reform”.

However, early in April 2016 the League of Women Voters of Michigan announced that while “there was a lot of interest, there was not a lot agreement on how to move forward.” Evidentially the Democratic Party, the unions, progressive non-profits and Mark Schauer, 2014 Democratic gubernatorial nominee, who is today leading Advantage 2020, the Democrats’ national effort on redistricting, did not come through with any financial commitment.

What does this mean? A redistricting constitutional amendment would ordinarily have its best chance of success in a presidential election year like 2016 when Democratic voter turnout is historically at it’s highest. Those same potential redistricting funders who took a pass on 2016 will likely concentrate their financial resources in 2018 on the open governor’s race, the state senate and the state house contests when all 148 legislative seats will be on the ballot instead of a statewide redistricting ballot question.

Next presidential election after that will be in 2020 when the next governor and state senate, who will have a say on redistricting legislation in 2021, will be half-way through their term of office. If the state senate and governor’s office stay Republican after 2018, the Democrats’ only alternative may be a “Hail Mary” constitutional amendment in 2020. Otherwise, they’ll need control of the state house in 2021 just to deadlock the legislative process and shift the redistricting decision out of the legislature to the state supreme court.

REDISTRICTING REFORM IN OTHER STATES

Democrats, the unions, and progressive non-profits like the League may be looking at the redistricting lawsuit in Wisconsin that will be going to trial May 24-27, 2016 before a three-judge federal panel in Madison. That lawsuit has already survived two motions, one to dismiss and the second to grant summary judgment to the State.

The plaintiffs in Whitford v Nichols are challenging the 2011 99-seat Wisconsin Assembly map as an unconstitutional gerrymander. No redistricting plan in the nation has ever been struck down on a partisan gerrymandering claim. True, the U.S. Supreme Court as far back as 1986 in Davis v Bandemer held that a partisan gerrymandering claim is judiciable. However, the Court in that case failed to agree on a clear standard for judicial review. Again, in 2004 in Vieth v Jubelirer the U. S. Supreme Court held (5-4) that there are no judicially manageable standards available to resolve partisan gerrymandering questions. Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion left the door open in the future to entertain such a standard.

The Wisconsin case attempts to establish a manageable standard with a measurement they are bringing to the Court called the “efficiency gap”. University of Chicago Law School professor Nicholas Stephanopolous helped to create this new metric. The “efficiency gap” is simply the difference between the party’s respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms: lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates, but in excess of what they needed to prevail. A party gerrymanders when it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large “efficiency gap”.

Wisconsin Democrats believe the Courts can use the “efficiency gap” calculation in the same way the Courts currently look at population disparities between districts. For example, state legislative population differences under 10% are presumptively valid. Population differences over 10% shifts the burden to the State to justify the reasons for the population disparity between districts. Wisconsin Democrats are asking the Court to establish an “efficiency gap” standard. The current Wisconsin Assembly plan had a pro-Republican “efficiency gap” of 13% in 2012 and 10% in 2014. The Wisconsin plaintiffs want the Court to establish a standard where a wasted vote score under a certain percentage results in no finding of partisan gerrymandering. However, a wasted vote score over a certain percentage shifts the burden to the State to justify those wasted votes (i.e., compliance with the Voting Rights Act, drawing compact districts, etc.). If the State cannot justify the higher wasted vote score, the Court would make a finding of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Win or lose at trial in May, Wisconsin Democrats believe this case is destined to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court before the 2018 elections. The Whitford case would by-pass the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Federal law allows direct appeal of a 3-judge panel decision in a statewide redistricting case to the U.S. Supreme Court (28 U.S.C. Section 1253). This case may bring Justice Kennedy the manageable standard he requested in Vieth. Even if he doesn’t get that, if a fifth liberal justice joins the Court in 2017 and finds this standard workable, the number of partisan gerrymandering cases across the nation could explode.

(Reposted April 23) Paul Rozycki, retired Mott Community College professor, wrote the following article in the April issue of East Village magazine:

“As Flint works its way through the water crisis, the range of problems seems overwhelming. Every time it looks like we’ve solved one problem, another rears its head.

“At first it seemed that all we needed to do was replace old lead pipes in the homes that had them, as difficult and expensive as that might be. But getting the lead out of the water may be more complex than simply replacing lead pipes — some of the homes with the highest lead levels had copper plumbing rather than lead. It also seems that there may be problems with galvanized pipes or fixtures inside homes.

“For as encouraging as Mayor Weaver’s Fast Start program has been, right now it looks like it’s time to say “not so fast” and make sure we are tackling the real cause of Flint’s problems, before we invest all the money and effort in digging up the city.

“To be sure, that will not sit well with an understandably impatient city that has been waiting for many months for a lasting solution to endless cases of bottles of water, expert reports, celebrity visits and political promises. The impatience, frustration and anger is justifiable as the city tries to work its way through each new problem.

“But it will happen. It won’t be quick or easy, but it should be done right.

“Having said all that, all is not gloom and doom in Flint. Some of the more positive stories have been submerged in the water crisis stories. (I told you a few months ago it was hard to get away from these water analogies.)

KAREGNONDI PIPELINE

“One of the best good news stories that’s been overlooked is the impending completion of the Karegnondi Pipeline — the 80-mile long pipeline that will connect Genesee, Lapeer, and Sanilac counties to a dependable source of Lake Huron water.

“(Karegnondi is a Huron-Petan Indian word for “big lake” and was an early Indian name for Lake Huron).

“While Flint has been embroiled in its water crisis the Karegnondi project has been progressing on schedule, and is $15 million under its $300 million projected budget. When was the last time a large government project like this came in on time and under budget?

“With less than 10 miles of pipe left to install, it should be done by mid-summer, though water-testing, as a result of Flint’s problem, may delay the full usage of Karegnondi’s water by about six months.

“The project should provide Flint and Genesee County residents with a dependable, clean water supply at an affordable price. The hope is that it could be a boost to both agricultural and industrial growth in the region. A few weeks ago, Genesee Co.  Drain Commissioner Jeff Wright presented at overview of the pipeline project at the Sloan Museum. Those interested in more details and Wright’s presentation should check out the Karegnondi website, www.karegnondi.com .

KETTERING UNIVERSITY HOME LOAN PROGRAM.

“The second project has nothing to do with water (finally). Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute), which has been a leader in the restoration of Atwood Stadium and the University Avenue Corridor, is offering its employees a forgivable $15,000 loan if they purchase a home in one of three neighborhoods surrounding the college. Employees who already live in those areas can receive a comparable $5,000 loan to improve their property. For a city that has lost so much of its population (and tax base) this should be a boost not only to the Kettering neighborhood, but to all of Flint. Let’s hope that Mott Community College, Baker College and the University of Michigan/Flint (and other organizations) will consider similar programs. It’s a step in the right direction to rebuilding Flint.

REMAKING THE FLINT CULTURAL CENTER.

“The third piece of overlooked news …is the revitalizing of the Cultural Center. Built in Flint’s auto heyday and considered by many to be the “jewel of Flint,’ the Cultural Center will be seeing a major remake over the next few years. The Sarvis Center is being demolished to make way for a dramatically enhanced Grand Lawn, which will provide space for a terraced amphitheater for musical concerts and a grand entrance to the Cultural Center. Plans are in place for the expansion of the Sloan Museum and a move of the Buick Gallery from its present location.

“Similarly, the Flint Institute of Arts is looking toward its own expansion in the near future … What is remarkable is that the city and its leaders are able and willing to tackle this project now, when we don’t have the auto industry money and jobs that we had when the Cultural Center was first built in the early 1960s. It says a lot about the commitment that Flint’s major institutions have to the city — even in its most troubled times.

FLINT HOSTS PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

“A final piece of good news is how Flint handled the presidential debates, two days before the Michigan primary (on March 8). Many of the national media came to Flint expecting to see only the worst images of “Roger and Me” and “The City That Poisoned its Kids.”

“There’s no doubt these images were there, but they also saw a well-organized debate, a welcoming city, all framed in the impressive setting of The Whiting (Auditorium). They saw a larger and brighter picture of Flint and more than a few of them said so in their reporting. In addition, the voters of Flint (and all of Michigan) came through as well, turning out in record-breaking numbers, surpassing the (previous record) turnout in 1972.

“And these are only four of the major developments that have been taking place while we have been overwhelmed by the Water Crisis. There are probably a few hundred others that deserve our attention.

“So, it’s worth remembering as we dig our way out of mountains of plastic bottles, fact-finding reports, Congressional hearings, costly lawsuits, impassioned marches, celebrity visits and political pronouncements, that the new Flint is quietly building for the future — just below the surface of its troubled waters.”

(Posted April 12) To declare that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has been “embattled” during the past six months is an understatement of the first “water.”

Snyder has been vilified by the ‘usual suspects’ among his political enemies — Democrats, liberals, progressives, union activists — over the Flint “water crisis.” But he’s also taken a beating from entities that should know better, and DO know better, except that they’re poorly-focussed, ill-financed and often just plan lazy. We’re talking about the news media, interest groups, public relations flacks, and the political “chattering class” who will go along with any outrageous depiction of current events as long as it doesn’t get them into trouble or affect their bottom line.

To be sure, Snyder has never been able to build up a deep-seated constituency of emotional support from any portion of the citizenry who would go to bat for him if he got into political trouble, which he’s been in for some time. Voters feel little connection with Snyder, even though he’s been a decent, civil, gentlemanly public servant who has eschewed personal attacks on opponents who despise his policies.

Nothing demonstrates the essential unfairness of news coverage of Snyder than the castigation of the governor, and of Republicans in control of state government, than the demand by the Mainstream News Media (MSM) that Snyder voluntarily divulge through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) the contents of all his emails — and of emails within the executive office and all of the executive branch of state government —  about the Flint crisis, even though he was and is under no legal obligation to do so.

But Snyder DID release such emails, anyway, starting with 550 of them covering at least 270 pages back in January and February that he thought “would likely be of interest to the news media and the general public.” He then released some 6,000 more, covering 4,400 pages, last month.

Did he get any credit for it? Of course not. The question is, why not? There are four reasons:

1. When any government official releases something “voluntarily,” the question always is: “But did he hold something back? We deserve to know that. There should be a law compelling him to release everything, and Snyder and his party are blocking execution of such a policy. What is he trying to hide?” Democrats as well as the news media belabor the point that Michigan is one of only two states with a blanket exemption from public records law.
2. The news media is ‘low energy’ and in financially-straitened circumstances. It doesn’t have the resources (or the stamina) to pursue responses to the questions it wants answered. As David Waymire, a Booth Newspaper reporter “back in the day” (he’s now a pr maven), said on Michigan Public Television’s “Off the Record” this past week-end: “I was assigned to covering environmental news in state government exclusively. I knew those people. I went to the DNR and DEQ every day. That doesn’t exist anymore.” No, it doesn’t, so the news media demands that there be a law to spoon-feed it information at their computers which they can dissect and opine upon without moving.
3. But what if there were such a law? Let’s remove the “blanket exemption” that the news media rails against. Would it make any difference? Almost certainly not. In New York State, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo communicates, he leaves no trace. Cuomo, a Democrat, claims he doesn’t like email, which is the communications tool of choice for many politicos and government officials, along with much of the private sector. As The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin points out, state records — or lack thereof — show how far Cuomo’s distaste for email goes.  A request under New York’s FOIA law (which does NOT exempt the executive branch as Michigan’s does) for any emails sent or received by Cuomo since his first day in office turned up ZERO messages from 2011 up to the present. Nor did Cuomo’s office turn over any messages sent through BlackBerry messenger, a hard-to-trace messaging service widely reported to be a communication tool favored by the Democratic governor, according to pressconnects.com, which is part of the USA TODAY network. Cuomo doesn’t have a state email account, according to his office. And his Blackberry isn’t owned by the state. A Cuomo aide has informed the media: “Executive chamber staff do not use personal email accounts to conduct state business.” No law in the state of New York requires the governor to communicate via email or even set up a state account. Same in Illinois, where Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner explained to reporters why requests for his emails come up empty. He doesn’t use email. “None whatsoever,” he said. “Email causes all kinds of trouble. Nothing good comes from that.” Snyder would surely agree. So would Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, two other Republican governors who have never set up a state email account, although Brownback has been criticized for using private email to communicate with his staff (and nothing can be done to stop him).
4.  Minority Democrats in the state Legislature have cleverly woven the demand for more “sunshine” and “openness” and “accountability” by Snyder and the GOP-controlled House and Senate into their narrative that their opponents “have something to hide.” Dems’ demands to expand and liberalize FOIA to compel the Republicans who run state government to divulge what they’re allegedly obfuscating fit neatly into the Democratic campaign theme that the Flint water crisis was “mishandled,” that a massive “cover-up” by the Snyder administration is underway., and that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The Democrats are abetted by a Lansing- and Detroit-centered MSM that is not sympathetic with the Republicans’ overall agenda and would love to see the GOP taken down a few pegs. Problem is, Democrats did nothing about the “government transparency” issue when they had control of everything back in the early 1980s, or even as recently as when they held the governorship with Jennifer Granholm for eight years and controlled the state House for four. If the news media realizes the hypocrisy, they’re silent about it, or some of them are so young and new-to-the-game they don’t remember and haven’t bothered to look up the history.

Under pressure to prove to the media and the general electorate that they’re as sensitive to criticism about the lack of transparency in state government as their antagonists, the state House GOP has introduced a 10-bill package of bills that would open legislative communications to the public. Eight of the bills (HBs 5469-5476) would create a Legislative Open Records Act (LORA), which mirrors the FOIA but is applicable only to the Legislature. The final two bills (HBs 5477-5478) expand FOIA to the Governor’s office. The entire package if enacted would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017, and would not be retroactive. The 10 bills have been referred to the House Oversight & Ethics Committee, with a hearing expected later this month.

Under the LORA measures, constituent communications would be exempt from requests, meaning that if a K-12 school superintendent or other local official who is not a registered lobbyist communicated with a lawmaker, s/he would not be subject to a public request. Other exemptions include: 1) Personnel records that are personal in nature, such as human resource files; 2) Advisory communications within the public body or between public bodies; 3) Trade, commercial, or financial records provided confidentially to assist public policy; 4) Communications regarding bill drafting, sergeant-at-arms security issues, and auditor general records; and 5) Records exclusively maintained by legislative caucuses of both major political parties.

But does any of this require the executive branch or members of the Legislature to set up state email accounts? No way, which means that all the hullaballoo the citizenry has been exposed to for months has been meaningless. Anything in the way of “sunshine” that the media claims must be enacted isn’t going to happen, or, if it is, it will be easily circumvented, as we’ve found in New York, Illinois, Alabama, Kansas and countless other states.

(Posted April 12) Actor Sean Astin, best-known for his film roles as Samwise Gamgee in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, as Mikey Walsh in “The Goonies” and the title character of “Rudy,” talked to a Flint audience of nearly 300 last week about his late mother Patty Duke’s lifelong struggle with bi-polar disorder.

Duke won an Academy Award as “Best Supporting Actress” in 1962 for her role as the young Helen Keller in “The Miracle Worker.” Duke was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder some years later, acknowledged it publicly, and spent the rest of her life lecturing and being interviewed on the disease, also writing two groundbreaking books.

Astin, who is also a vocal advocate for literacy, mental health awareness, bi-polar disorder, civic engagement and other issues, appeared in Flint as the spring speaker in the Ballenger Eminent Persons Lecture Series, a program of Mott Community College.

Here is a transcript (the only one extant in the news media) of the salient points made by Astin in his April 7 talk:

“It’s April 7th, and it’s snowing! What’s up with that? … It’s such an intense time to be here in this town. A little gallows humor — maybe bi-polar disorder is like the water in Flint, but the solution is much more obvious in the one case than in the other. But if we live our lives with an intense sense of mission, it is possible to have purpose even while we struggle with these conditions …

“Seriously, thanks for your acknowledgement of my mother’s life, but this will not be a eulogy … To begin, she was in her mid-Thirties when she finally stopped resisting getting help and went to my dad’s psychiatrist. He diagnosed her with bi-polar disorder when she was 35. She preferred the old-fashioned term ‘manic-depressive,’ because it sounded to her like what she felt — the mania, and then the depression.

“She embraced her diagnosis. She decided to ‘come out.’ She wanted to unburden herself… When it comes to the mental health arena, I don’t pretend to be an expert. I’m unpolished; I can only give you my impressions. I come from a family of fast criers, quick talkers, lots of problems. My only response (to my mother’s condition) can be to talk about it, to try to create some value … My mother was a ‘scream from the rooftops’ type of person. She knew she had behaved really badly — (because of her condition) she was out of control. She couldn’t get out of bed for two-to-three months at a time, then there was all the excessive spending, the demands for grandeur, the promiscuity. She wanted to apologize, to explain, to destigmatize the condition.

“But she became a spokesperson before she was ready to be — she was giving speeches and testifying before Congress, but she still had miles of work to do to be credible to me. She would still have freak-outs, she would break stuff, crash the car in the driveway, throw things out the window for no reason … It felt to me like she was presenting herself to the public as a whole, stable person, but that wasn’t the reality I saw. So I had a difficult time with that, because she wasn’t healed. Her blow-ups caused a lot of people a lot of pain.

“Nevertheless, my mother was so bold because she regretted her behavior, and this is the way she dealt with it. We should all be the heroes of our own stories. We shouldn’t make ourselves the villains in someone else’s story. She had this condition, she announced it, and because of that I’ve had thousands of people come up to me and say, ‘Your mother saved my life.’ People came out of the woodwork in this past week, in every way you can imagine — cell phone, email, regular mail, personal contact, Instagram, texts, cards, flowers, everything …

“I don’t think that kind of public proclamation, what my mother did, is required for  everyone in dealing with their own wellness. But living with the condition in secrecy is painful. Privacy can be very important. It should be the individual’s right to disclose whether they have an illness. It’s an OK secret, but I hate the idea that people should be burdened by this. With bi-polar disorder, there are different degrees of severity. I think that my mother’s was pretty extreme, but nowhere near as many of the people I’ve met…

“Let me say something at this point about the language of mental health. The vocabulary is designed by and for the medical community — the doctors, the psychiatrists, the pharmaceutical companies. That language can be discouraging for patients and victims — it seems to tell you you’re not going to get better. But we’ve got to remember — we’re the arbiters of our own destiny. The psychiatrists work for us. They’re a helpful ally in our journey, yes,  but we should be in charge. They’re human beings, too, and they make mistakes. So we, or you, have to be partners in your own health. You’ve got to be the CEO of your own body, your own mind…

“Let’s talk about politics just for a minute. Take what (Republican presidential candidate) John Kasich said last week: “What has surprised me the most about this presidential campaign is how many lonely people there are out there. How many people there are who just want someone to make them feel special.” That was absolutely awesome!

“People are a mess. Most of the time they’re scared, or they’re suffering, and it’s just sloppy … We have to be patient with other people while they’re getting help. My mom had lots of suicide attempts; a lot of that time we were little kids. I heard the talk about how such attempts are ‘cries for help.’ That doesn’t get the job done for me. It’s pain that’s expressing itself. It’s hard in this life to determine whose pain deserves to be focused on first. I mean, does a child’s life deserve to be involved in your pain? During one of my mom’s episodes, my little brother was freaking out, but I was just like ‘Nope! Nope!’ I had an absolute sense of certainty that I would not allow myself to be manipulated in that way.

“If you’re religious or spiritual, God can maybe play a wonderful part in how you’re trying to cope, but there can also be a misapplication of that. Maybe if some religious figures didn’t try to ‘show us the Truth’ by speaking in such a hard way and just be more open to listening to you, they could be more helpful.

“So, if you think a person is having problems, how do you help? Here is what I would say: 1) Protect yourself in all ways, physically, emotionally,  mentally, before you go to other people, like the medical experts; 2) Realize you might fail — no matter how hard you try, that person still may commit suicide. There are certain times when people are beyond your reach. You’ve got to have humility — you can’t be driven by obsession with ‘getting results’; 3) Approach the person with sensitivity but also strength. The thing I hated about living with my mom was ‘walking on eggshells.’ There was nothing you could seem to do right. You were on tiptoes — she might freak out. You have to find the right words. If you behave with a noble purpose, the words will come. It doesn’t mean being what we call ‘strong.’ It’s hard to navigate between humility and certainty (about what should be done). Just being aware of that divide can be enough; 4) There may be others who can help you. Be patient. If you move too fast and you get it wrong, it can be catastrophic; 5) Don’t regret the situation you find yourself in; and 6) There no rules for what you should do. There may be ‘best practices’ — that’s all you can hope for. You’re in the ‘Wild West.’ That may not be a great comfort, but just knowing it may be because you can arm yourself against the results of what you’re doing if they don’t turn out right.

“What I’ll remember most about my mom was that she was always a good person, a decent person. She always loved us. I don’t know anyone who didn’t forgive her. Forgiveness is the most empowering thing you can do because it just sucks away the power that anybody else may have over you.

“Do we worry that her condition could be passed down to us genetically? Do we worry? We’re aware of it. It’s always something we think about. We discuss it as a family (Astin is married and has three children). It’s a consideration. We’re processing it.

“Is there any way you can be proactive, to fend off a possible recurrence of the condition in the family? Not really, but I’d say three things may help — nutrition, hygiene, fitness. For instance, I’m a runner. Above all, if you’re confronted with this terrible condition, try to be creative. That requires imagination and it’s exhausting, but you should try. It’s liberating when you think like that. Come up with tactics. You might fail, but be as creative as you can.”

The Ballenger Lecture Series, named for benefactor William S. Ballenger, Sr., was chaired this past academic year by Michelle Montpas, a professor of nursing at Mott CC. The series began in 1955 and is one of the longest-running, most prestigious such academic forums in Michigan. Speakers have included scientists Wernher von Braun and Jared Diamond, journalists Alistaire Cooke and Peter Jennings, government leaders like former British Prime Minister Sir Harold Wilson and Polish President Lech Walesa, talk show host Geraldo Rivera, writers Alex Haley and William F. Buckley, Jr., musicians Harry Belafonte and Patti Smith, film director Spike Lee, actor Tony Shaloub, and entrepreneur Daymond John.