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.