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.

