Issuu

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR YEARS OF EDITORIAL FREEDOM Ann Arbor, Michigan

michigandaily.com

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

NEWS

A students’ guide to the 2024 Ann Arbor ballot proposals

The Michigan Daily spoke with local elected officials and advocates to understand each proposal Ann Arbor voters will see on the ballot in November Capital Improvements Proposal B would renew the city’s current tax millage of up to 1.10 mills for park maintenance and capital improvements until 2044. A property owner would continue to pay $1.10 in taxes for every $1,000 in taxable property value to finance park improvements and replace old equipment. The current millage was approved by residents during the Nov. 7, 2006 election and is set to expire this year. Proposal C: Non-Partisan Elections Proposal C would eliminate primaries for Ann Arbor elections and remove any indicators of party affiliation next to candidates’ names. Written by the Coalition for Ann Arbor’s Future after the city’s August primary had historically low voter turnout, Prop C suggests the removal of August primaries, instead relying solely on votes cast in the November general elections. John Godfrey, spokesperson and organizer for Coalition for Ann Arbor’s Future, said he believes the proposal would boost student voices in a September interview with The Daily. “A lot of Ann Arbor is out of town in early August,” Godfrey said. “People are not here or not paying attention. … Student support for these proposals in November will really fundamentally change the ability of students to really take an active, meaningful role in the life of the city where they’re living and studying.” Godfrey also spoke to The Daily in September about how he believes nonpartisan elections encourage voters to research candidates’ individual platforms and values.

HAILEY NICHOLS Daily Staff Reporter

This election cycle, Ann Arbor voters will decide whether to approve local ballot proposals focusing on sustainable energy, park maintenance, city primary elections and campaign finance. The Michigan Daily spoke with local elected officials and advocates to understand the potential impacts of each of these four proposals. Proposal A: Creation of a Sustainable Energy Utility Proposal A would establish a publicly-owned Sustainable Energy Utility, a fee-based service that residents could use to supplement their current electricity, heat, cooling, light or energy with renewable sources from local solar, geothermal and battery storage systems in the city. Proposal A would not institute any new taxes — residents could opt in to the program and pay fees based on the services they request. In an interview with The Michigan Daily, Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor explained how the SEU would function practically for Ann Arbor residents. “A Sustainable Energy Utility would enable us to roll out 100% renewable, reliable energy for folks who sign up, without raising taxes,” Taylor said. “It will enable the city to buy and source heat pumps and energy-efficient home improvements, for people who choose to participate in the SEU, at a cost we project to be below market value.” Proposal B: Authorizing Tax for Park Maintenance and

“Most American cities have nonpartisan elections,” Godfrey said. “This means if you’re running for office in a nonpartisan election, you don’t have a label. You can’t just say ‘Vote for me because I’m a Democrat’ or ‘Vote for me because I’m a Republican.’ You have to explain what it is you actually want to do and what you believe in. You have to connect with your constituents more, and it forces greater transparency and not reliance on a simple label.” The Huron Valley Area Labor Federation, an organization representing 20,000 local labor union members in the Washtenaw, Livingston, Jackson and Hillsdale counties, opposed Proposal C in an August press release. HVALC president Ian Robinson told The Daily in September he believed listing party affiliations on the ballot is valuable to voters. “It’s dangerous to eliminate parties, because at least if there’s a party structure and the party means something,” Robinson said. “There are some boundaries to what you can believe in, fight for and do if you’re going to stay in the Democratic Party. For lowinformation voters, like I was, and like most of us are — certainly most students are — it helps at least to have the party label to go by.” Proposal D: Fair Elections Fund Proposal D would set aside 0.3% of the city’s general fund to match donor funding for City Council and mayoral candidates’ campaigns who volunteer to receive contributions in lower amounts from only natural persons. The percentage set aside would amount to approximately

NEWS

Evelyn Mousigian/DAILY

$425,000, according to Taylor. The city’s general fund aims to provide services related to areas such as public safety, recreation programs, city planning and development and housing and human service programs. Voters Not Money, the advocacy group responsible for the “Vote Yes to Prop D” campaign, state on their website that they believe the proposal would lead to the election of individuals who better represent the average Ann Arbor resident. “A small-donor matching fund removes financial barriers, allowing ordinary people to run for office and win,” the website reads. “By relying on small-dollar contributions from residents, public officials become more

accountable to voters — not special interests.” The State Attorney General’s office has reviewed Proposal D and found its content and language to be incongruent with state law requirements. If passed by Ann Arbor voters, the proposal would likely face litigation at the state level. Mayor Taylor expressed his concerns about Proposal D in an interview with The Daily, saying the city does not have money to spare for a campaign fund, and the proposal incorrectly assumes that large amounts of money are spent on local elections. “I think it’s deeply unwise,” Taylor said. “We don’t have $425,000 to remove from

services to pay for political campaigns. Further, there are no fraud protections or threshold requirements, as is common with campaign matching systems. And finally, it imagines a local-level corollary to the massive amounts spent at the federal level … big money is not in local elections.” Eligible residents can register to vote in person until polls close on Election Day, or online until Oct. 21. Early voting locations, which include the University of Michigan Museum of Art and the Duderstadt Center, will be open around the city from Saturday, Oct. 26 to Sunday, Nov. 3. Absentee ballots must be requested by Nov. 1 and returned by mail or dropbox by Election Day.

GOVERNMENT

UMich Board of Regents approves Slotkin and Rogers clash in second and final Senate debate institutional neutrality bylaw The Board also extended University President Santa Ono’s contract to 2032

MATTHEW SHANBOM & AVA CHATLOSH Daily Staff Reporters

The University of Michigan Board of Regents met in Flint Thursday to vote on an institutional neutrality bylaw, a contract extension for University President Santa Ono and initiatives for the University of Michigan-Flint campus. The board unanimously approved an institutional neutrality bylaw which prohibits regents and other University leaders from making statements on behalf of the University on issues not related to internal governance. This bylaw follows a report presented at the September Board of Regents meeting. During the meeting, University Regent Mark Bernstein (D) spoke in favor of the bylaw, citing the University’s past instances of neutrality in the wake of major world events. “There was no statement after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln,” Bernstein said. “There was no statement during World War I. There was no statement during World War II. There were no statements after the JFK assassination, there were no statements and on and on and on. Institutional statements are a modern phenomenon and misguided venture that portrays a public mission. As an institution, therefore, we should put up questions before answers in this policy.” Before the vote, U-M Flint professor Kimberly Saks spoke against the broad scope of the

bylaw, claiming it is not always clear when faculty members are speaking as individuals versus as members of the U-M community. “Sometimes lines are blurred as to when we’re speaking for those institutions and when we’re speaking for ourselves,” Saks said. “For example, I’m the associate director of a research institution here on campus. If I congratulate someone for research related to the institute’s mission on perhaps a political or social issue, am I speaking as an associate director or myself? This is a new calculus that faculty must engage in every time they speak, putting a chilling effect on even the most basic academic speech.” University Regent Jordan Acker (D) agreed with Saks’ concern about the bylaws’ breadth, but ultimately said that he supports it. “I’m standing on voting yes on this with some reservations,” Acker said. “Those reservations are twofold. First, I am a little concerned about how overly broad it is, and I think we need to see how this actually plays out in real life on our campus. The second one is about our communication. Historically, the University has not been the best at communicating, and it will be very important to our faculty, to our staff, to our students, that they understand that this is not a speech ban.” Prior to voting, University Regent Sarah Hubbard (R) said the University heard similar feedback from the public and Senate Assembly Committee on University Affairs during a forum Wednesday. All of the regents

GOT A NEWS TIP? E-mail news@michigandaily.com and let us know.

Follow The Daily on Instagram, @michigandaily

were provided a transcript of the forum prior to the vote. Hubbard said the regents took the feedback from Wednesday’s forum into account. For example, some attendees expressed concerns that institutes and centers might have their speech restricted as a result of the bylaw. Following these concerns, the bylaw as approved was adjusted to not include institutes and centers. The board also unanimously approved a contract extension for Ono which will last until Oct. 1, 2032. The extension includes a new $1.3 million base salary, an increase from his previous $975,000, along with increases in annual deferred compensation. University Regent Denise Ilitch (D) introduced the motion, citing the University’s accomplishments since Ono took office in the fall of 2022. “(Ono) played a critical part in the final agreement and groundbreaking for the University of Michigan Center for Innovation Detroit, which will have a profound impact in economic growth and opportunity creation,” Illitch said. “He has led our Vision 2034 and Campus Plan 2050 through which we will make groundbreaking discoveries that impact the greatest challenges facing humanity.” The board also discussed the status of the U-M Flint Transformation Plan two years after the plan was first announced. U-M Flint saw a 6.5% increase in enrollment from fall 2023 to fall 2024, building off the 2.42% growth that the campus Read more at MichiganDaily.com

The two candidates talked the economy, gun violence, funding for public education and more MARY COREY

Daily Staff Reporter

Content Warning: This article contains mentions of gun violence. At the WXYZ-TV station in Southfield Monday night, U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin and former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers held their second and final debate before Michigan voters send one candidate to represent the state in the U.S. Senate in November. Many of the questions asked focused on issues the candidates discussed at their last debate — the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza, the economy, electric vehicles and Michigan manufacturing jobs. The candidates also discussed gun violence, student loan forgiveness and funding for public education, giving voters a fuller picture of both candidates with fewer than three weeks until Election Day. In her opening statement, Slotkin said her campaign has been motivated by a desire to improve the lives of the middle class. “I’m really, at the end of the day, running for Senate because I believe in my bones that we need a strong and growing middle class,” Slotkin said. “That means jobs with dignity, and that means making sure we attack the costs that are eating a hole in your pocket.” In his opening statement, Rogers urged voters to consider their situation at the beginning of the Biden administration when deciding whether to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. “We have to answer one question, this is the most important question we will ask during this campaign: Are you better off than

For more stories and coverage, visit

michigandaily.com

INDEX

you were four years ago?” Rogers said. “I traveled the state, talked to a lot of people. The simple answer is ‘Absolutely not.’” The candidates began by discussing gun violence, which was not brought up in their first debate. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and adolescents in the United States, killing more than 1,100 children and teens since the beginning of 2024. Slotkin, whose congressional district has been the site of two school shootings in recent years, said she believes leaders are responsible for protecting children from gun violence. “This idea that we can’t go after the number one killer of children in America is broken,” Slotkin said. “While Mr. Rogers was off in Florida, I was representing this district where we had not one but two school shootings in my district: Oxford High School and Michigan State University. … To me, we have to, as Democrats and Republicans, gun owners and nongun owners, go after the number one killer of our children in our communities, in our schools, by suicide, by accident” Rogers recognized the impacts of gun violence and said he would focus on addressing what he sees as its root cause — teen mental health — instead of pushing for stricter gun control policies. “We need to enforce the gun laws that we have, (but) we also need to deal with mental health issues that are happening in our schools,” Rogers said. “This generation of Americans is under mental duress and distress like I have never seen before, and it means that we’re going to have

to come together on how we get ahead of these problems. Banning guns is not going to do it.” The candidates also discussed education. In 2023, Michigan was ranked 41st in the country for education. Rogers said he believes childhood literacy rates are a pressing problem for Michigan students and proposed more intensive educational options for students who are struggling. “This, to me, may be the biggest civil rights issue of our generation,” Rogers said. “Our kids are not learning how to read. Here in Michigan, 39.6% of third-graders could read at grade level.” Slotkin emphasized her support for public education and criticized Rogers for his ties to Betsy DeVos, former U.S. Secretary of Education under President Donald Trump. “We have a whole generational problem with our education system, but for me, I am a believer in public education,” Slotkin said. “Mr. Rogers and I may differ on this. One of his biggest supporters is Betsy DeVos. She is very, very clear about her theory of education that she literally wants to defund public schools. She was our Secretary of Education, but now wants to get rid of the Secretary of Education position. For me, I believe in strong public schools.” Both candidates oppose widespread student loan forgiveness, an issue President Joe Biden has continued to push for despite ongoing legal battles. Rogers said he supports forgiving student loans for people who fill certain hard-to-fill professions in the state.

N E W S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ARTS........................5 MIC .........................10