According to the website, when 
going over each case, HR will 
focus on the nature and gravity 
of the offense, the timeliness 
and accuracy of the disclosure 
and the relevancy to the role 
held at the University.
HR’s statement explains the 
policy is meant to preserve a 
safe University community.
“Information about a faculty 
or staff member’s criminal 
activity helps the University 
maintain a safe community and 
prevent putting people at risk of 
harm,” the statement reads.
At the CSG meeting, the 
Carceral 
State 
Project, 
an 
initiative focused on issues 
of 
mass 
incarceration 
and 
immigration 
detention 
in 
Michigan, had representatives 
speak against the University’s 
new policy. In an open letter 
to the University, the Carceral 
State Project describes how 
they believe the policy has 
negative social and economic 
consequences 
for 
those 
on 
campus.
“Taken 
together, 
these 
policies 
promote 
over-
criminalization 
rather 
than 
public safety, reinforce the 
racial and economic inequalities 
in the criminal justice system 
and on our campus and have 
other 
devastating 
collateral 
consequences,” the letter reads.
Community member Patrick 
Bates, who spent 17 years in 
prison, described his personal 
disappointment 
with 
the 
University after hearing about 
the new policy. 
“At a very young age I caught a 

felony, and due to that, I couldn’t 
get any job, I couldn’t get into 
really good schools or anything 
like that …” Bates said. “I’ve 
been trying to better myself and 
I’ve been coming up here three 
times a week from Detroit, and I 
hear about this (the new policy); 
I’m just so appalled about 
what’s going on with this policy 
… I know while I was inside, I 
got an associate’s degree and I 
did everything I could to better 
myself, and I came home and 
the conversation we had was 
for me to come home and come 
to the University of Michigan 
and do the right thing. But, now 
with this policy that’s being 
enforced, what am I supposed 
to do?”
Ashley 
Lucas, 
associate 
professor of theatre and drama, 
also spoke about the new felony 
policy. She described how at last 
Wednesday’s town hall meeting, 
many faculty and staff members 
thanked her for what she and 
others are doing to push back 
against the policy. However, her 
colleagues said they would not 
sign the open letter against the 
new policy due to their fear of 
losing their jobs.
“One of the things that’s 
really frightening about this 
policy is that it has frightened 
so many of the people that 
care about you as students 
on campus,” Lucas said. “So, 
the only reason that I’m here 
tonight is to support the student 
voice … but I’m also here to 
represent the people that told 
me they were too frightened to 
speak.”
CSG Vice President Isabel 
Baer said she heard that the new 

policy was partially created in 
response to faculty who have 
been accused of sexual assault 
charges. If the University chose 
not to implement the policy, 
she asked the proponents of the 
resolution what solutions they 
had to address faculty members 
accused of committing sexual 
assault. 
In response, Public Health 
junior Zoe Gerstle, a member of 
the Prison Creative Arts Project, 
described how she believed the 
University should discuss with 
experts on how to best deal with 
issues of sexual misconduct, 
rather than suggesting this new 
felony notification policy as the 
main solution. 
“It’d be great if they (the 
University) 
consulted 
the 
experts at this university who 
study things like this,” Gerstle 
said. “They could create a policy 
that’s going to be more effective, 
as opposed to just handing 
something down. So we don’t 
necessarily have an answer 
on how to deal with sexual 
misconduct at this University, 
but a great start would be 
opening it up to the community 
forum to see what people have 
to say who are experts on this.”
Shifting 
gears, 
guest 
speakers from 1U discussed the 
drastic disparities among the 
Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn 
campuses, 
financially 
and 
demographically. 
According to the group’s 
presentation, the median family 
income for University students 
in Ann Arbor is $154,000, 
compared 
to 
$84,000 
in 
Dearborn and $77,000 in Flint. 
In addition, there is a large gap 

in the percentage of students 
eligible to receive the Federal 
Pell Grant at each campus, a 
grant in which the government 
provides funding for students 
in need of financial support 
for college. According to the 
presenters, in Ann Arbor, 15 
percent of students are eligible 
for the grant, compared to the 
39 percent eligible in Flint, and 
42 percent in Dearborn. 
To resolve these issues, LSA 
junior 
Sharif-Ahmed 
Krabti 
and members of the campaign 
proposed several solutions. One 
was to ask the state to equalize 
funding for all three campuses. 
Another was to encourage the 
University’s Diversity, Equity 
and 
Inclusion 
initiative 
to 
donate funding to the other 
campuses, seeing that out of 
the $85 million funneled into 
the program over the past few 
years, none of the money was 
dedicated toward Dearborn or 
Flint, according to Krabti.
“I think there’s a duty for 
Ann Arbor students here on 
this campus who are closest 
to the administration to really 
speak up the loudest about this 
issue,” Krabti said.
When asked about what 
suggestions the Assembly had 
to promote equality across all 
three campuses, LSA freshman 
Sujin 
Kim, 
CSG 
Ethics 
Committee chair, responded 
by encouraging the group to 
spread awareness of these 
disparities among the student 
body.

Grand 
said 
the 
new 
amendment 
would 
allow 
temporary city employees such 
as election workers to be able 
to sit on the commission. She 
explained the councilmembers 
edited the amendment to be 
more specific. 
“That was an oversight as 
we were trying to write an 
amendment that was slightly 
broader than election workers, 
because we recognized there 
are others in the community,” 
Grand said. “For example, we 
might have a youth applicant 
who is a summer camp worker 
and we don’t want to preclude 
that person from serving on 
the community police oversight 
commission.”
Councilmembers 
Jane 
Lumm, I-Ward 2, and Zachary 
Ackerman, D-Ward 3, who serve 
as the Council’s liaisons for the 
police oversight commission, 
sponsored 
the 
amendment, 
along with Councilmember Ali 
Ramlawi, D-Ward 5, and Grand.
Initially, 
the 
amendment 
allowed the council to waive 
the restriction, which requires 
former 
and 
current 
city 
employees to wait a period of 
five years from the end of their 
employment 
until 
they 
are 
eligible to sit on a committee. 
Councilmembers 
altered 
the language to specify the 
restriction waiver applied to 
temporary 
or 
seasonal 
city 
employees who received fewer 
than seven paychecks from the 
city in a year. 
Councilmember Jack Eaton, 
D-Ward 4, said he understood 
residents’ 
concerns 
over 
the 
initial 
language 
of 
the 
amendment posted in the agenda, 
but believes the new amendment 
addresses that concern. 
“I believe that this is more 
narrowly 
tailored 
than 
the 
language in the agenda, and it 
won’t encompass any unintended 
consequences,” Eaton said.
Grand and Lumm addressed 
concerns about the nomination 
process for the police oversight 
committee but were met with 
outbursts 
from 
the 
crowd 
criticizing what they saw as a 
lack of transparency.
Dwight 
Wilson, 
who 
is 
a member of the city’s task 
force for the police oversight 
committee 
and 
the 
Human 
Rights Commission but was 
absent at the council meeting, 
had a statement read for him 
during public comment. Wilson 
urged the council to be as specific 
as possible in their language. 
“Rumor has it that even before 
the independent police oversight 
commission is appointed, forces 
are at work to further weaken it,” 
Wilson wrote in the statement. 
“One assault is an amendment 
that will open the door to city 
employees, 
even 
policemen, 
sitting on the commission.”
Ramlawi 
stated 
he 
was 
satisfied with the language of 
the new amendment, but wished 
there was more trust from 
the community. He asked the 
community for the “space and 
trust” to do their work. 
“There has been obviously a lot 
of suspicion and we’re at a fragile 
state of trust right now with this 
new commission and we should 
respect that and know that,” 
Ramlawi said. “I think none of us 
wish to alter the amendment too 
great or at all until it is sat and 
approved.”
At 
several 
points 
while 
Ramlawi spoke, an audience 
member interrupted, demanding 

to know why the council was 
not being transparent about 
the criteria for being on the 
commission. 
Ramlawi 
said 
the 
qualifications 
for 
the 
commission are outlined in the 
amendment. 
Councilmember Jeff Hayner, 
D-Ward 1, opposed the new 
amendment. He shared concerns 
about any city employee being 
on an independent oversight 
committee 
and 
expressed 
worry 
about 
the 
vagueness 
of the definition of a city 
employee. According to Hayner, 
city councilmembers are not 
considered full-time employees 
of the city. 
“There’s a lot of terms that 
need to be defined,” Hayner said. 
“An independent body should not 
have (employees) from the city 
sitting on it. I would like to see 
this body remain independent.”
Hayner and Councilmembers 
Kathy Griswold, D-Ward 2, and 
Elizabeth Nelson, D-Ward 4, 
voted against the amendment, 
which passed by an 8-3 vote. 
Nelson sponsored her own 
resolution to prohibit “undue 
influence” from members of City 
Council who are not liaisons to 
the police oversight commission 
or the city’s Human Rights 
Commission. She said wanted to 
have an open discussion about the 
implementation of the ordinance 
that laid the groundwork for the 
police 
oversight 
commission, 
noting that even though the 
conversation was “a little bit 
awkward,” 
she 
felt 
strongly 
about having it.
“(The) council was sent a 
legal 
memo 
suggesting 
that 
the wording of my resolution 
is overly restrictive in trying to 
clarify this point,” Nelson said. 
“I really struggled in writing 
this 
resolution 
because 
this 
seems like common sense to 
me that we would not use the 
ordinance in this way or proceed 
with the ordinance in this way. 
I appreciate that all members of 
our community, including city 
staffers, including us members 
of council, are free to volunteer 
an opinion about an applicant 
and share that opinion with any 
of the four liaisons.”
She noted the liaisons had 
a “special role” to play in the 
process 
of 
recommending 
applicants to sit on the police 
oversight commission, but said 
when she complained about who 
would fill those positions, she 
was told the goal was to achieve 
balanced perspectives. Nelson 
challenged Lumm for the liaison 
position in December but failed 
to win the needed majority 
support from the council to take 
the spot. She said she had taken 
that as a cue to stay out of the 
affairs of the councilmembers 
who were designated as liaisons. 
“My 
resolution 
includes 
the 
term 
‘undue 
influence’ 
to describe generally, that at 
this stage in the process, none 
of us, except for those four 
liaisons, should be using our city 
positions to exercise any more or 
less influence than a community 
member could,” Nelson said.
Nelson 
criticized 
Mayor 
Christopher 
Taylor 
for 
attending some of the liaisons’ 
meetings. 
Taylor 
disputed 
Nelson’s characterization of his 
involvement, noting the time 
constraints on the effort and the 
need to convene a commission 
so the city could get its advice 
before hiring a new chief of 
police.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 — 3A

Fourteen 
companies 
have 
signed 
on, 
including 
large 
grocery distributors such as 
Walmart 
and 
Whole 
Foods 
Market and fast food chains such 
as Burger King, McDonald’s and 
Subway.
While 
the 
resolutions 
discussed by CSG, City Council 
and MUBP are significant, the 
University has not officially 
commented on the situation 
and could still offer Wendy’s 
a vendor spot. In order for a 
restaurant to be considered for 
the vendor spot, the University 
must first extend a bid to the 
restaurant.
In 
recent 
reports, 
Heidi 
Schauer, Wendy’s director of 
corporate 
communications, 
has said that the franchise 
previously at the Union did 
not submit a bid. However, it is 
unclear if the University even 

invited them to do so.
According to Kim Daley, a 
postdoctoral fellow in the School 
of Public Health and student-
activist, it’s still possible the 
University will accept a bid from 
Wendy’s, if a different Wendy’s 
franchise was invited to submit 
a bid. However, it is impossible 
for activists to know as the 
procurement process is secret. 
Daley, 
along 
with 
the 
Washtenaw 
Solidarity 
for 
Farmworkers, will speak at the 
University’s Board of Regents 
meeting on Thurs., Feb. 21 to 
encourage 
the 
University 
to 
officially prohibit Wendy’s from 
procuring a vendor spot until 
the franchise adheres to the Fair 
Food Program.
“We’re very excited and we do 
think this is a win, but we also 
want the president and the regents 
specifically to still make a stand 
and show that the University as 
a whole cares about ethical labor 
practices,” Daley said.

WENDY’S
From Page 1A

OVERSIGHT
From Page 1A

POLICY
From Page 1A

BARRIERS
From Page 1A

“Thinking about your overall 
purpose 
is 
really 
important 
because the ‘why’ shapes the 
‘how,’” Reynolds said. “What 
work are you doing and why are 
you doing it?”
Another 
barrier 
Reynolds 
mentioned was how international 
volunteers might have a difficult 
time understanding the context 
of a problem they are trying to 
solve. Her advice to volunteers 
was to research the history of a 
problem before arriving.
“We have to understand issues 
and know the root causes of the 
issues,” Reynolds said. “If we 
don’t know the root causes, our 
work is not going to be effective 
or sustainable for the community 
we’re working in.”
The third barrier Reynolds 
discussed 
was 
about 
the 
importance 
with 
which 
volunteers 
consider 
their 

identities 
and 
roles. 
She 
prompted the audience to think 
about how their identities would 
affect their experience in the 
specific countries where they are 
volunteering.
“Identities matter,” Reynolds 
said. “Our social identities affect 
how we shape the world around 
us. Whatever you are doing, if 
you are working with people, you 
are in a social environment.”
She 
also 
discouraged 
the 
audience 
from 
ignoring 
opportunities for mutual learning 
and benefit. Reynolds said in 
many cases, those going abroad 
to volunteer will benefit more 
than the communities they’re 
visiting. To reduce this disparity, 
she suggested volunteers think 
about what they can learn from 
community members and to 
try to understand all parts of a 
culture.
“Ask people, ‘What do you 
want and what do you need 
— what are your priorities?’” 

Reynolds said. “If you’re going 
to a place just to help people, 
you’re not seeing the rich, lively, 
positive pieces of the culture that 
are there as well.”
To conclude her presentation, 
Reynolds discussed volunteers’ 
problematic use of social media. 
As an example, she brought up 
the commonly posted photos of 
University of Michigan students 
in a foreign country with a maize 
and blue block ‘M’ flag, and how 
most people have not considered 
the implications of the photo.
“What does it mean for people 
to take a flag and put it up in a 
space that has been previously 
conquered 
by 
an 
invading 
country?” Reynolds said. “When 
people from the United States 
go to those countries and take 
a big flag with them and post it 
up, what does that mean to the 
people you’re working with?” 
Reynolds 
offered 
parting 
advice for those volunteering 
abroad on how to make the 

largest impact and how to utilize 
social media.
“Make a plan before you go 
abroad,” Reynolds said. “And 
when posting on social media, 
use captions to tell stories, add 
names and add what you learned 
from those people.”
LSA 
sophomore 
Margo 
Dickstein, 
who 
plans 
to 
volunteer in Israel this summer, 
told The Daily after the event 
that she hopes to gain a better 
understanding of the Arab-Israeli 
conflict, echoing Reynold’s point 
of understanding the context 
and history of one’s study-abroad 
country. 
“I’m a double major in poli-
sci and international studies, so 
it’s good to gain international 
experience,” she said. “But I also 
think it’s important when you’re 
studying a conflict to not just look 
at it from the outside, but to see it 
from the inside. I’m excited to see 
it from a human perspective, not 
just a bunch of numbers.”

Read more online at 

michigandaily.com

CSG
From Page 1A

“Any 
new 
administration 
especially, when there is a 
change in party, there’s a sense 
of ‘We’re going to fix things, 
we’re going to reverse direction 
on some things that have been 
really bad,’” Donahue said. “But 
with the Trump administration, 
it was a really extraordinary 
sense of declaring Year Zero.”
Donahue 
outlined 
three 
phases in which the Trump 
administration 
worked 
to 
deregulate 
environmental 
policies. 
The 
first 
phase 
consisted of a series of executive 
orders Trump issued loosening 
regulations, including the “two-
for-one” executive order, which 
required federal agencies to 
eliminate two regulations for 
each new regulation they sought 
to implement.
“(Trump issued) the two-
for-one executive order to 
eliminate two regulations for 
every one new one,” Donahue 
said. “And also a requirement 
that 
new 
regulations 
that 
impose 
compliance 
costs 
on the private sector have 
to be offset by the repeal of 
regulations that will reduce 
compliance costs by at least 
an equal amount. And in 
that 
calculation, 
regulatory 
benefits like health benefits or 
other advantages that might be 
provided by regulation are not 
counted, which is a big deal.”
Donahue said while the Trump 
administration was enthusiastic 
about 
deregulation 
policies, 
they widely ignored the typical 
transition process in which civil 
servants within environmental 
agencies outline key functions 
of the organization and explain 
deregulation procedures.
“You have this very high 
level of ambition coupled with 

a disdain or failure to engage 
with the sort of machinery of 
changing the direction of the 
federal regulatory apparatus,” 
Donahue said.
Trump’s 
executive 
orders 
demanded 
the 
review 
and 
reconsideration of some of former 
President Barack Obama’s major 
regulations, such as the Clean 
Power Plan and clean water 
standards known as the “Waters 
of United States” rule.
Phase 
two 
of 
Trump’s 
deregulation, 
Donahue 
said, 
was 
suspending 
compliance 
dates of existing environmental 
regulations. 
This 
suspension 
prevents key industries from 
having to follow the regulations 
Trump 
plans 
to 
eventually 
repeal.
“The general idea is, ‘We want 
to change the regulation, maybe 
repeal them outright, maybe 
make them less onerous for 
industries or otherwise change 
them, and while we’re doing that 
we don’t want industry to have 
to worry about complying with 
them,’” Donahue said.
Donahue noted a suspension 
on regulating glider vehicles — 
heavy trucks sold as new despite 
having old engines that do not 
comply with the Clean Air Act. 
“The proposed rule got a lot 
of adverse comments, and so 
what they did was they decided 
they wanted more time to think 
about it and they issued a letter to 
the industry called a ‘No Action 
Assurance,’ 
which 
basically 
said, ‘We’re not going to enforce 
the emission limits on your 
vehicles,’” Donahue said.
LSA sophomore Dylan Berger, 
president of the University’s 
chapter of College Republicans 
and a columnist for The Daily, 
did not attend Donahue’s talk, 
but said in an email he agreed 
with the Trump administration’s 
efforts 
to 
repeal 
existing 

regulations. Still, Berger hopes to 
see a more comprehensive review 
of environmental initiatives by 
the administration in the future.
“As Americans, nothing is 
more important than protecting 
our 
beautiful 
environment,” 
Berger said in the email. “As 
such, we must tackle climate 
change and other threats to our 
environment head on. However, 
many of the regulations meant 
to protect the environment have 
fallen short of the mark. They do 
little to protect the environment 
while unnecessarily harming our 
economy. I applaud the efforts 
of the Trump administration 
to repeal these ineffective and 
harmful 
regulations. 
Going 
forward, however, I’d like to 
see the Trump administration 
outline a clear plan to protect 
both 
our 
environment 
and 
economy.”
On 
the 
campaign 
trail, 
Trump floated the possibility of 
abolishing the Environmental 
Protection 
Agency 
and 
has 
reiterated the idea since taking 
office. First year Law student 
Rebecca Maas attended the 
event and expressed her surprise 
over lack of support for the EPA.
“One 
thing 
that 
perhaps 
should not have surprised me 
is that the EPA is facing so 
many struggles with this new 
administration, when before it 
seemed that there was relatively 
high bipartisan support for an 
EPA, and now that bipartisan 
support seems to be in danger,” 
Maas said.
Donahue said the third phase 
of the Trump administration’s 
deregulation of environmental 
policy is the actual act of 
repealing regulations. Donahue 
mentioned the act to repeal 
the Clean Power Plan and its 
replacement 
with 
“deficient” 
alternatives. 
Under 
Trump, 
the EPA proposed replacing 

the Clean Power Plan with 
the Affordable Clean Energy 
proposal, which would allow 
states to have more autonomy 
in regulating greenhouse gas 
emissions 
from 
coal-burning 
power plants.
Donahue said this change was 
one of the most aggressive efforts 
to repeal regulations. 
“The 
transition 
between 
Obama and Trump is pretty 
much the level of the sort 
of violence of the change, is 
unprecedented,” Donahue said. 
“The harder Reagan transition 
generated a lot of the law we see 
cited … but I think it’s fair to say it 
wasn’t nearly as far reaching and 
Reagan’s regulatory people were 
a lot more conventional in their 
approach.”
Maas, 
a 
first 
generation 
college student whose family is 
from Germany, said the lack of 
political consensus surrounding 
environmental protection was 
unfamiliar to her.
“My 
family 
came 
from 
Germany, so I’m the first person 
from my family to graduate from 
an American college,” Maas 
said. “For us, the whole idea 
that people are arguing about 
keeping the environment clean 
is surprising because it is a very 
high priority in Germany. So I 
just hope in the future that both 
parties can agree on ways to keep 
our environment clean.”
Maas 
said 
she 
believed 
environmental protection should 
not be a partisan issue.
“I think the environment is 
important because regardless 
of which party you are from, 
you 
only 
get 
one 
world,” 
Maas said. “I hope that the 
current 
administration 
takes 
environmental 
issues 
more 
seriously 
moving 
forward, 
though based on what we heard 
about in this talk, I’m not sure if 
that will happen.”

Read more online at 

michigandaily.com