Goldenberg, professor of public
policy and political science,
founded Turn Up Turnout, a
non-partisan
student
group
which aims to increase voter
registration and turnout among
young people. Upon discovering
the NSLVE data, Goldenberg
said she felt motivated to
develop a voting initiative.
“We’re surprised both at
how low everybody is, and
we’re surprised Michigan isn’t
leading rather than trailing,”
Goldenberg
said.
“So
we
thought this really wasn’t the
Michigan that we know and are
proud of, and we really wanted
to do something about that.”
Goldenberg recruited some
of her former students to form
TUT, and they soon pitched
the Big Ten Voting Challenge
to University President Mark
Schlissel. The Big Ten Voting
Challenge, a competition among
all the Big Ten universities to
see which school can produce
the highest percentage and
greatest improvement in voter
turnout in the Nov. 6 election,
began
in
September
2017.
Among the hurdles to student
voting, registration was one of
the first to be addressed.
“One big reason is that
students move a lot and their
voter
registration
doesn’t
stay
current,
and
they
sometimes forget to update
their addresses,” Goldenberg
said. “Another reason is all the
voting rules we have to abide
by are state rules, and they
vary by state, and some states
have passed rules that make it
much easier for young people
to vote than other states. For
example, quite a few states now
have online registration, but
Michigan doesn’t.”
The state of Michigan also
does not offer early voting,
which can alleviate scheduling
difficulties for students trying
to make time to travel to the
polls. Erin Byrnes, democratic
engagement
lead
at
the
Ginsberg Center, said the early
voter registration deadline can
also pose challenges to student
turnout.
“We
do
have
a
voter
registration
deadline
in
Michigan that’s 30 days out,
so the time is limited,” Byrnes
said. “Once you’re back on
campus, if you’re looking to
register in Michigan, you’ve got
roughly five weeks to make that
happen.”
In order to increase student
voter registration, TUT and
the Big Ten Voting Challenge,
as well as several other student
groups,
advertised
voter
registration information online
and offered voter registration
tables on campus. Now that the
Michigan
voter
registration
date has passed, the Big Ten
Voting Challenge will focus
on educating students about
their choices on the ballot and
voting logistics. Though the
voter
registration
deadline
in
Michigan
closed,
voter
registration for many out-of-
state students is still open.
“Pushing people to get out
and vote, making sure people
know when election day is
and when the polls are open,
making sure folks know they
can bring their U of M ID with
them, that’s a valid form of ID,
all of those things are really
important,” Byrnes said. “Polls
are open until 8 p.m., if you’re
in line at 8, you can vote and
they can’t tell you to leave.”
Byrnes said organizers will
now focus on providing students
with information on decisions
they will have to make at the
polls,
including
a
proposal
that would dramatically alter
Michigan’s voter registration
deadline.
“We’ll still doing in person,
peer-to-peer tabling,” Byrnes
said.
A, was put on the ballot after a
citizen-led petition gathered more
than 5,000 signatures to place it
on the November ballot.
Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher
Taylor
urged
residents
in
a
letter posted to Twitter on Sunday
to vote “no” because of a loss of tax
revenue and affordable housing.
“If City Proposal A passes, we
will lose hundreds of units of new,
permanent affordable housing;
miss out on millions of dollars of
tax revenue to support basic city
services; and be forced to either
raise taxes or re-allocate millions
of parks dollars to build and
operate a failed park in the middle
of our downtown,” Taylor wrote.
“The passage of City Proposal A
will sentence the Library Lot to
remain what it is today: desolate
and uninviting.”
Councilmember
Anne
Bannister, D-Ward 1, said she
believes the city has enough
tax
revenue
without
new
developments and thinks Taylor is
stressing the issue tax revenue loss
to fit his agenda.
“The city does have a lot of
tax revenue,” Bannister said. “It
seems a bit disingenuous that
when it’s something that the
mayor supports, he asks for money
for it. But, when it’s something he
doesn’t support, he brings up this
idea that we don’t have the money.
These things are invaluable to
the economic vitality and it’s
an economic engine to have an
upbeat, positive, inviting ‘Center
of the City.’”
Taylor criticized the proposal
for a lacking a payment plan for
the development of the urban park
and commons.
“It proposes to obligate the
city without any kind of proposal
on how to pay for it to reserve
the land for an urban park and
commons,” Taylor said. “A park
at that location will be a failure
… Urban parks in order to be
successful have to have organic
activity.”
Bannister is one of three
councilmembers viewed as an
opposition member of Taylor’s
eight-councilmember
majority
and urges voters to say “yes,” to
Proposal A.
“We’re
representatives
of
democracy,” Bannister said. “As I
hike around the ward and the city
and also for my own campaign
… I’m continuing to amplify the
voices of the residents as best I
can and am firmly supporting
this urban park and ‘Center of the
City’.”
According to Taylor, passage
of Proposal A would also cost
money the city can use to pay
off the repurchase of the “Y lot.”
On May 1, the council voted to
repurchase the property at 350 S.
Fifth Ave. for $4.2 million from
real
estate
developer
Dennis
Dahlmann. The repurchase came
after Dahlmann failed to develop
the property into commercial
developments
and
affordable
housing.
Taylor also explained the 43
units that would be developed
at 150 percent of fair market
rent were designed to be workforce
housing units instead of affordable
housing units.
“150 percent of fair market rent
is going to be below market rent
because fair market rent is a figure
derived by HUD (Department of
Housing and Urban Development)
in order to key a number of
things, one of which is Section
8 vouchers,” Taylor said. “These
are going to be apartments in a
location where rents can be quite
high, there’s going to be 43 units
available in this building for
people that otherwise couldn’t
afford it.”
In an open letter addressed to
Taylor, Ann Arbor resident Mary
Hathaway
criticized
Taylor’s
critique
of
losing
affordable
housing
by
addressing
the
financing of the project.
“We all want more, truly
affordable housing,” Hathaway
wrote in her letter. “You and
others on Council set a goal of
creating over 3,000 new units of
affordable housing by 2035. The
question is, what’s the best way to
achieve that goal? Your answer is
to sell public land to Core Spaces,
a Chicago developer specializing
in luxury student apartments, and
allocate $5 million to the housing
trust fund. Does $5 million really
buy 200 to 500 new units of
affordable housing? ... Most people
have no idea how you will leverage
$5 million to create 500 units. Do
you?”
Hathaway said the council
should look at the Library Lot as an
opportunity to build relationships
and neighborhoods.
“By retaining public land at the
center of the city, we can take a
more holistic approach to planning
for development on the Library
Block,” Hathaway wrote. “Rather
than looking at a parcel in isolation
and
insisting
on
maximum
development of a 17-story tower
(or one even taller than that), we
should look for an integrative
approach
that
strengthens
the relationships between the
neighboring
structures
and
welcomes pedestrian movement.”
Taylor also mentioned the
contract requires Core Spaces to
have a 12,000-square foot public
plaza that could be used for events.
Taylor
believes
passing
Proposal A will raise similar issues
associated with Liberty Plaza such
as drug use and violence.
“Liberty Plaza does not meet
our aspirations and if Proposal A
passes, I’m very much concerned
that a park at that location would
replicate the failures of Liberty
Plaza,” Taylor said.
Bannister
and
fellow
Councilmember
Sumi
Kaliasapathy,
D-Ward
1, sued Taylor and City Clerk
Jackie Beaudry in June over the
development contract for allegedly
signing a contract without the
council’s approval.
Both Taylor and Bannister
declined to comment on the
status of the lawsuit because it is
currently in litigation.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Friday, October 12, 2018 — 3A
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
ALEXANDRIA POMPEI/Daily
Frances Champagne from the University of Texas, Austin, speaks on research for genetic inheritance at a
lecture hosted by the University Psychology Department in East Hall Thursday afternoon.
GE NETIC INHE RITANCE
VOTER
From Page 1A
LIBRARY
From Page 1A
their proposed ordinance for
consideration
during
a
work
session in September.
Three
councilmembers
introduced the citizen task force’s
ordinance. Councilmember Sumi
Kailasapathy, D-Ward 1, one of
the sponsors of the ordinance,
said it was the most democratic
ordinance she had seen in her six
years on the council, though she
did say she didn’t feel the proposal
was perfect.
The proposal was defeated
by the council in a 5-4 vote. The
council voted to advance Taylor’s
competing ordinance in an 8-1
vote, with only Kailasapathy
voting against it, saying it was a
“watered down” version of the
citizen task force’s version.
“Somebody
feels
like
something is better than nothing,
but sometimes that something
actually
undermines
the
credibility and the trust that the
community needs to have in this
commission,” Kailasapathy said.
“That’s my rationale.”
Since the vote, Taylor said his
ordinance retained most of the
important aspects of the citizen’s
proposal while ensuring that it
adhered to the city charter and
AAPD’s
collective
bargaining
agreements.
“It is very important to me
that we have an effective, trusted
and
legally
defensible
police
commission,” Taylor said. “We
received the task force’s proposed
ordinance. What I did is I went
through that ordinance with the
city attorney’s office and strove
to take as many of the policy
recommendations as would meet
that standard and strove to put
them into law.”
The defeats of the citizen’s
proposal angered the task force’s
supporters, who began chanting,
“Who do you protect? Who do
you serve?” as councilmembers
walked out of the meeting.
In
response
to
the
legal
questions concerning the police
oversight
commission
at
the
meeting, task force co-chair Rich
Friedman challenged the council
to have more patience before
discarding the citizens’ proposal.
“With some of the parts where
people are very dissatisfied, I
think we just have to say, ‘Well,
let’s see how it works,’” Friedman
said. “Let’s see if the city does
what it says it’s going to do. Let’s
see if the police department does
what it says it’s going to do.”
In
both
ordinances,
the
commission
would
have
11
voting
members,
including
a youth member, with two
councilmembers acting as non-
voting liaisons. Members would
be appointed by the City Council
liaisons and approved by City
Council.
Active
duty
police
officers
and
city
employees
are ineligible to sit on the
commission, with the task force’s
ordinance extending the ban to
include any former employees of
or “regular contractors” with the
city or “any police department.”
The commission in each case
would be able to initiate its
own review of AAPD practices
and conduct, as well as retain
independent
counsel
subject
to approval by City Council.
Additionally,
people
filing
complaints could choose to
remain anonymous.
However, in the task force’s
ordinance,
the
commission
could withhold complaints from
AAPD, which could potentially
conflict with the department’s
union contract.
Nancy Niemela, who works
at the City Attorney’s Office,
said the police department’s
collective bargaining agreement
requires that employees are
notified of complaints against
them within two weeks of when
the city receives the complaint.
“It provides certain timelines
for that investigation, it provides
certain disciplines that can be
imposed on the officers and
then it goes on and provides
the
grievance
process
after
that, with respect to how the
grievance proceeds and then
goes to arbitration,” Niemela
said.
Taylor’s ordinance avoids this
issue by giving residents the
option to “transmit information”
to
the
commission
through
community liaisons instead of
filing a direct complaint.
The
mayor’s
proposed
ordinance and the ordinance
created
by
the
citizen
task
force
both
explicitly
state
the
police
oversight
commission
is
expected
to
operate independently of City
Council and other arms of city
government. However, a memo
from City Attorney Stephen
Postema cast doubt on just how
much autonomy the council
could award the police oversight
commission.
Postema
argued
any
commission
created
by
the
council “is part of the City” from
a legal perspective, meaning the
commission would not be an
independent legal entity.
“Any ‘independence’ by the
Commission would be, as with
any board or commission, limited
to operating the commission
within the parameters of any
resolution or ordinance setting up
the Commission,” Postema wrote.
As a result, the police oversight
commission would be subject
to the same legal constraints as
the rest of city government. That
includes the city charter, existing
laws and collective bargaining
agreements
with
AAPD
employees.
According to Postema, the
subpoena power given to the
commission by the task force’s
proposal is problematic because
the city charter does not explicitly
give the council this power.
“Because the City Council may
not have this power, it would not
have the authority to delegate
such power to a Commission,”
Postema wrote.
Taylor’s ordinance does not
include subpoena power. It also
differs from the task force’s
ordinance in that it states that
an investigation undertaken by
the commission must begin after
AAPD completes an internal
investigation.
Kailasapathy took issue with
the prohibition on concurrent
investigations during discussions
at the City Council meeting, and
supported allowing simultaneous
inquiries.
“I don’t think it’s the intention
of the commission to be getting in
the way,” Kailasapathy said. “It’s
almost two parallel tracks.”
Niemela said there was nothing
barring concurrent investigations
in the AAPD collective bargaining
agreements because “it’s never
been an issue before.”
Despite the criticisms of the
task force supporters, Taylor said
he was hopeful his ordinance
would be able to foster trust in
the community between residents
and law enforcement. The council
will take up the issue of funding
for the police commission in
Taylor’s ordinance at the City
Council meeting on Monday.
“I believe that we all share
the same goal,” Taylor said. “I
believe that we all want a policing
commission
that
provides
meaningful
commissioner
oversight of the police department,
and that the commission that
will result from the ordinance
up for consideration on Monday
will have that result. I believe
that we all share the same goal
of making sure that Ann Arbor
police and the citizens that they
serve have a common trust and
understanding.”
ORDINANCES
From Page 1A
the digital system. Students will
be able to brighten the screen,
make the text bigger and utilize a
variety of other resources.
LSA
sophomore
Jack
Wroldsen, who is considering Law
School, believes these changes
were inevitable and may require a
bit more practice, but overall will
be a great aid to students.
“I really like (the switch to
digital) — I think the LSAC is
moving in the right direction by
putting it online and increasing
the testing availability,” Wroldsen
said. “Advanced degree tests
like the GMAT have been online
for decades, so I think moving
into a digital format is the LSAC
keeping up with the times. It may
take a bit more practicing and it
adds some sort of unpredictability
as it’s hard to know exactly what
it’ll look like. But I’m sure it’ll be
a well-structured program that
makes the testing process actually
easier.”
Jeff
Thomas,
executive
director of pre-law programs
for Kaplan Test Prep, believes
this is a practical change, saying
newer generations of students
will virtually age with the
advancement of technology.
“This really gives two big
advantages for the Law School
Admission
Council,”
Thomas
said. “First, it allows for a very
consistent test-taking experience
for students. Up until now, the
test
was
paper-and-pencil-
based.
Students
would
walk
into the testing room and would
encounter some sort of variability
within the testing experience,
such as proctors keeping time
in different ways. Now there is
a sense of consistency. Second,
this will really allow the LSAC to
speed up the scoring process and
then get the scores in students’
hands faster.”
When the test transitions in
July, about half of the students
will take the computerized LSAT
and the other half will take the
standard pencil-and-paper test.
Students won’t get to choose
their type of test — it will be
randomly assigned. Because of
this, the LSAT is offering a one-
time opportunity: Students will
have the chance to see their score
before they decide whether they
want to send it to each of their
prospective schools. Those who
decide to cancel are allowed the
option to retake the test until
April 2020 with no additional
costs. The upcoming July test is
the only test for which this will be
an option.
Law student Jeff Nwagbo is
in favor of the transition, but he
believes students might just have
to adjust their study habits.
“I don’t think it’s a huge deal
either way,” Nwagbo said. “I
think I’d rather take it on paper
but that’s probably because of
the way I studied for it. Some
of my strategies for taking the
test involved diagramming logic
games or marking up the reading
comprehension passages so I’m
not sure how they’re going to
handle that if the test is digital.
I don’t think the online thing
makes much of a difference in
terms of difficulty.”
There are four paper-and-
pencil administrations of the
LSAT left: November, January,
March and June. Kaplan is
encouraging all students that
are considering studying for,
preparing and taking the LSAT
next year to take at least one of
those
final
paper-and-pencil
exams.
“Students shouldn’t be scared
of the digital format, but it does
introduce a level of complexity
and
unfamiliarity
and
there
are, frankly, not going to be a
tremendous amount of practice
tools
digitally
available
for
students immediately at launch,”
LSAT
From Page 1A
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com