Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, November 3, 2016
Head back to business school
FROM THE DAILY
Extending term limits favors democracy
N
ext week, Ann Arbor residents will vote on a controversial ballot
proposal to extend the term of office for Ann Arbor mayor and
City Council members from two years to four years. If approved,
City Council elections would be held at the same time as general elections,
meaning Ann Arbor will see increased voter turnout for City Council
elections, candidates who will take their positions more seriously and council
members who will be able to take on larger projects that will have lasting
benefits for the city. For these reasons, The Michigan Daily endorses the
ballot proposal to extend city officials’ term limits to four years. However,
this ballot proposal doesn’t get at the fundamental problem that primaries
are held in August, resulting in a very small group of voters going to the
polls to decide who even has the opportunity to run. Though extending term
limits is a step toward a more democratic Ann Arbor, it is not an ultimate fix.
Proponents
of
the
ballot
proposal argue that extending
the term limit to four years will
increase voter turnout. This
is a much needed effort: Ann
Arbor’s last odd-year election in
2015 garnered an unsurprisingly
paltry 8.7 percent voter turnout,
allowing a relatively small group
of highly invested voters an
outsized voice over the majority
of city residents. However, voter
turnout more than triples for
even-year general elections that
coincide with larger national and
state-wide contests. Increasing
the city officials’ term limit
from two to four years would
allow local elections to occur
concurrently with larger ones
and draw significantly more
constituents to the polls, ensuring
the local government responds
to the wants of the broader
population rather than small
groups of highly invested voters.
At the University of Michigan
level,
even-year
elections
would likely increase student
input because more students
vote during larger state and
national elections. Input from
diverse
populations
helps
ensure that local government
is
truly
representative
and
accountable
for
its
diverse
groups of constituents. Though
some argue that those who do
show up to vote are voters who
are well-educated in city issues,
with longer terms, we hope to
see candidates who are more
serious
about
disseminating
information
about
their
campaigns. Ideally, this will
not only increase voter turnout,
but also bring those voters to
the ballot with more adequate
information
to
make
an
educated vote for city officials.
In
addition,
four-year
terms would likely amplify
the productivity of elected
city officials while in office.
Holding elections every two
years forces officials to divert
valuable
time
away
from
governing
to
campaigning.
Expanding
terms
allows
council
members
to
focus
energy on the types of long-
term
projects
critical
to
developing cities such as Ann
Arbor. Furthermore, it gives
city officials time to gain a
more nuanced understanding
of the city’s constituents and
issues.
Those opposing the proposal
argue two-year terms actually
enforce more accountability
of elected officials — running
for
re-election
means
officials must engage with
constituents more frequently,
and
potentially
changing
seats allows voters to voice
their concerns about quickly
changing local events more
frequently. Though two-year
terms do force candidates to
critically engage with voters
during election cycles, the small
voter pool in odd-year elections
reduces accountability to the
broader population. This also
encourages more pandering
to single-issue voters and less
independence for city officials
to actually accomplish their
initiatives for the city.
However,
increasing
the
term
limit
is
no
panacea.
While increasing city officials’
term
limits
may
increase
accountability
and
enhance
elected
representatives’
productivity, Ann Arbor still
must make significant strides
toward
a
more
democratic
election
process.
Council
primaries occur in August,
meaning a very small group of
voters (and even fewer students)
decides on the candidate pool
before
the
actual
election
in
November.
The
current
partisan primary system also
urges candidates to run under
a party banner. The fact that no
Republicans have held elected
office in Ann Arbor in the past
10 years — and exceedingly
few even run — exacerbates
the partisan primary system’s
stifling of choice.
Moreover, four-year terms
may
prompt
more
voter
participation because a four-
year term in office carries
greater
weight.
However,
extending terms to four years
may encourage straight-ticket
voting, as voters associate local
officials with candidates at the
top of the party’s ticket. This
may lessen serious engagement
with local candidates and make
local
issues
unnecessarily
partisan. In fact, Ann Arbor
is one of the only cities in
Michigan that still relies on
partisanship in local elections
and governance. Many local
governments
have
abolished
partisan elections to promote
meaningful engagement with
local issues rather than voting
for
whichever
candidate
is
associated with a preferred
gubernatorial or presidential
candidate. Ditching the partisan
primary system in addition
to
expanding
terms
might
significantly
improve
Ann
Arbor’s democratic process.
Expanding
term
limits
from two to four years will
significantly
improve
voter
turnout across diverse segments
of
Ann
Arbor’s
population
and increase elected officials’
productivity on complex issues.
Though much work remains to be
done on improving the primary
system,
the
Daily
believes
expanded term limits will help
significantly
strengthen
Ann
Arbor’s democratic process.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
The Flint-Standing Rock connection
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
H
istory,
unfortunately,
seems to repeat itself.
When we say this, we
really mean that we never learn
from our mistakes. Last week,
the Ford School of Public Policy
held a policy talk on Flint’s water
crisis. A panel of community
leaders and a member
of the governor’s task
force discussed the
array
of
injustices
Flint
experienced
and
continues
to
experience.
A
member of the panel,
E. Hill De Loney, the
executive
director
of the Flint Odyssey
House
Health
Awareness
Center,
said something that’s
stuck with me the
past few days: “There’s not a
race problem in America. There
is, however, a racism problem in
America.”
The United States prides
itself on a unique tapestry of
cultures and backgrounds and a
sense of equality tying them all
together. As much as we want
to believe this is an accurate
portrayal of the country, it isn’t
— and we all know it. Embedded
inequalities based on race,
ethnicity and socioeconomic
status are institutionalized and
systematic. Minorities in the
country are among the poorest
populations. The danger of
not
addressing
inequalities
is that people in privileged
positions may take advantage
of such inequalities. Just as
we saw discrimination that
intertwined people and the
environment in the Flint crisis,
we see it again in the hills of
North Dakota.
In American history classes, we
learned, in a very peripheral way,
about the historic discrimination
of
Native
Americans,
characterized by the systematic
relocation of tribes westward and
onto isolated reservations. This
has led to the present 29.2 percent
poverty rate of Native Americans,
the highest of any racial group
in the United States. The newly
intensified
situation
at
the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation
is a testament to their enduring
hardships
and
yet
another
example
of
environmental
racism in the United States.
Environmental justice is defined
as
“the
fair
treatment
and
meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with
respect
to
the
development,
implementation,
and
enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.”
In Flint, this type of justice was
non-existent. In Standing Rock, it
still is nowhere to be found.
The Sioux are part of a
Native American tribe living in
the Standing Rock Reservation
in
North
Dakota.
Energy
Transfers Partners, a natural
gas company, is constructing
the Dakota Access Pipeline,
an underground pipeline near
sacred Sioux land. The $3.8
billion pipeline would transfer
massive amounts of
oil between states in
a supposedly safer
way. However, the
pipeline
threatens
tribal
rights
as
construction is near
their
reservation
and sacred burial
sites. The pipeline
also
poses
the
threat
of
water
contamination to the
Sioux people living
on and near the land.
State officials have assured the
environmental safety of the
pipeline. However, there have
been 220 pipeline spills in 2016
alone, as well as one in North
Dakota just three months ago,
and a pipeline explosion in
Alabama this week. The Sioux
people
and
environmental
activists have been protesting
the finishing of this pipeline
for the past five months, yet
there has been no agreement
made to protect their cultural
and environmental rights.
Just
this
weekend,
the
situation intensified as police
arrested at least 142 protesters
and forced others out of land
they had occupied in protest.
The sad irony of this situation
is that it only perpetuates the
racial injustice Native Americans
have faced since Christopher
Columbus arrived in America.
The limited land that tribes are
now entitled to on reservations,
which was allocated by the
federal government to begin
with, is again threatened. I mean,
what century are we in? The same
history lesson we learned about
Anglo-Saxon colonists pushing
tribes westward and taking their
land is reminiscent of what is
happening now. An effort to make
money and expand a business is
valued over the environmental
concerns of a people and their
culture — more specifically, the
concerns of a minority group.
It sounds unfair doesn’t it? To
take advantage of an already
disadvantaged
group?
Well,
history shows it happens often.
Racism
intertwined
with
environment is at the heart of
both situations. The outright
disregard for the people of Flint
due to their races and their
economic statuses resulted in
a health crisis that to this day
has not been solved. A question
commonly posed to illustrate
the environmental injustice of
the city is this: Would this have
happened in a predominantly
white or subsequently richer
city? Probably not. The delay
in government action and the
neglect
officials
showed
for
Flint’s concerns would not have
occurred 50 miles down the
road in Ann Arbor. At Standing
Rock, we can ask a similar
question: Would an oil pipeline
be constructed near or under a
cemetery or church in Ann Arbor
or near the city at all? I think you
know the answer.
Similar to Flint, the people
of Standing Rock, who would
actually live with this pipeline,
were barely consulted — if at
all — when it came to the major
project. According to Seattle
Times reporter Lynda Mapes,
the tribe has said it was not
adequately involved in the
construction
decisions
and
were not even consulted until
after the construction started.
In a press release last month,
the Sioux people expressed
that “the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers did not hold
meaningful consultation with
our Tribe before approving
construction of this pipeline.
They did not conduct a survey
of cultural resources.” This
highlights a huge flaw in U.S.
policy
making.
Entering
a
community, whether to fix
a problem or unknowingly
create one, is dangerous when
you have no understanding or
consideration of the people
who live there.
A solidarity movement on
Facebook
has
drawn
more
attention and hopefully advocacy
for
the
environmental
and
cultural rights at stake. Situations
like the one in North Dakota
have the power to shape future
relationships
between
groups
and policies on environmental
protection. The current disregard
for and lack of true consultation
with the people of Standing Rock
cannot be tolerated any longer.
A community’s right to a safe
environment is a human right,
as is cultural respect. Both are
at risk at Standing Rock. The
United States has a responsibility
to take care of our own, yet we
allow the people who have the
fewest economic resources to
be taken advantage of. There
must be a compromise between
the Sioux Tribe and Energy
Transfers Partners that doesn’t
take advantage of the ingrained
inequalities of a minority. By
playing
on
inequalities
we
perpetuate them. If we don’t
change something now, if we
don’t start a more understanding
and
compassionate
approach
to policy, then we run the risk
of letting history repeat itself.
Standing Rock is a test for the
country — and I know we can do
better than this.
ANU
ROY-
CHAUDHURY
LAURA SCHINAGLE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan
Regan Detwiler
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Kit Maher
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Anu Roy-Chaundry can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
JOE GUITH | OP-ED
T
ake chances. Take the
job other people don’t
want and make a success
out of it. Get your hands dirty.
Listen to those who can mentor
you and save you from repeating
mistakes made by others.
These are the lessons I
learned
while
earning
my
MBA at the Ross School of
Business that have served me
well through the turns of my
20-year career in the food
service,
consumer
products,
technology and retail arenas
with companies including The
Coca-Cola Company, KFC, Intel
and, today, Cinnabon.
One of the key moments of
insight came for me during my
MBA program when I founded
Mcorp,
an
internationally
focused
volunteer
student
organization. At the time, I
was simply looking for a way
to spend the last Spring Break
of my student career. So, I
decided to build a new student
organization
and
organize
a volunteer trip to Belize. I
wanted to unite our classes
while raising awareness around
social responsibility. I pitched
my idea to the administration
and was funded $5,500 to get
the operation off the ground.
Much to my surprise, more
than 20 people committed
and joined me for a week of
philanthropy, self-growth and
team building.
Moments like this can be the
building blocks of your career.
The
positive
response
to
Mcorp showed me that it pays
to try something different and
to put yourself out there with
your ideas. Don’t count on an
organization to map out your
career. Chart your own path.
Experiences like Mcorp are
why I decided to take control
of my career, starting with
pursuing an MBA. Talent and
skill separate us from our peers,
but learning and implementing
the principles of leadership
move us to a higher plane in
our careers and beyond typical
achievements.
I took the lessons from
Mcorp and other experiences
with me as I worked at Coca-
Cola as the vice president of
global business development
and later as the vice president
of
vending
operations
for
North America. Trust me, no
one was champing at the bit
to run the vending business.
It was tedious and could easily
have become the company’s
dinosaur
business
without
some
TLC
and
focus
on
problem solving by investing
in new technology. What most
saw as daunting, I saw as an
opportunity. We threw out
the familiar approaches and
reversed
double-digit
sales
declines and franchise losses.
The result propelled my career
onto an executive track.
My MBA experience also
greatly informed me about
how to build a team. Too often
organizations get caught in
the habit of hiring someone
with the same experience and
skills for a given role without
considering
someone
with
different industry experience
or from a larger operation.
As president of Cinnabon,
I am constantly looking to
improve the organization by
hiring people outside the food
service arena with a fresh
perspective.
Embracing new opportunities,
reevaluating existing ones and
recognizing the value of diverse
teams has defined my career.
My MBA experience reinforced
these instincts by showing me
the importance of teamwork
and encouraging new ideas and
taking chances. I want people
willing to put themselves and
their ideas “out there.”
So forge your own path,
take on challenges that others
won’t, recognize the strength of
succeeding as a team and you’ll
put yourself in a position to
meet your current career goals
and hit goals you haven’t even
dreamed of yet.
Joe Guith is the President of
Cinnabon and an alum of the Ross
Schoool of Business.