While members of the audience held up signs of protest against Albert McWilliams’s proposed appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman, Ward 1 Council member Sumi Kailasapathy and Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin all raised objections when it came time for City Council to approve the minutes from the September 16th meeting at which John Hieftje pushed through McWilliams’s appointment while violating Council Rules. At the October 7th meeting, DDA Board appointee Albert McWilliams was, once again, the point of contention. At the September 3rd meeting, McWilliams’s proposed appointment was met with stiff resistance  on the part of five Council members, all of whom found McWilliams candidacy singularly unacceptable. The reason? McWillaims’s personal website and his Twitter account contained material, including photos, that several Council members saw as degrading to woman.

On September 3rd, Hieftje asked to withdraw McWilliams’s nomination. The minutes prepared by the City Clerk, however, did not reflect that fact. At issue was whether the appointment had been postponed on September 3rd (which would have required a vote) or withdrawn.

At issue, really, is whether John Hieftje has enough Milk of Magnesia stockpiled to get him through the next year.

As Kunselman suggested the minutes be changed to read that the mayor “pretended to postpone” the request for confirmation of the McWilliams appointment, shocked laughter rippled through the audience. Ward 1 Council member Sabra Briere did her best to explain to Council members what the mayor actually meant to say on September 3rd, while Hieftje looked increasingly dyspeptic. Ward 5 Council member Warpehoski suggested that Kunselman was engaging in “political theater.” Ward 4 Council member Margie Teall honest-to-Dog “remembered” Hieftje saying he’d postponed the proposed appointment on September 3rd.

Steve Kunselman, not waiting to be recognized by Hieftje, shot back at Teall that had the McWilliams nomination been postponed, Council would have voted on the postponement. “We didn’t vote,” he said, speaking calmly. His point was simple: In bringing the appointment back and requesting a vote the same evening on the 16th of September, Hieftje’s proposed candidate McWilliams had to have eight votes (he only got six) for confirmation, according to Council Rules.

Sabra Briere then asked for “advice” from the City Attorney. The City Attorney, his fingers burning from the hot potato, said it was a matter of parliamentary procedure and so was up to Council’s interpretation of those rules.

All in all, it was an unprecedented effort by City Council members Kailasapathy, Lumm, Kunselman and Anglin to show the public that they are prepared to demand open, honest, transparent government and hold proposed appointees to high standards. Hieftje appointee, Julie Weatherbee, grudgingly agreed as she live Tweeted the meeting that Council members should do research and ask questions about mayoral appointees:

In short, for John Hieftje it was the equivalent of Mexican food at 3 a.m. Take a slug of Pepto to wash down  the Tums.

The end to the French Farce that is Albert McWilliams’s proposed appointment to the DDA is around the corner. Come November 7th, Ward 4 Invisible Woman Marcia Higgins (who was absent from the October 7th meeting), will be replaced by Jack Eaton. Anyone who has followed Eaton’s campaign for office during the primary election season knows that he favors an ethics policy that avoids even the appearance of impropriety, and finds McWilliams’s proposed appointment unacceptable for a number of reasons.

It’s probable, then, that unless McWilliams withdraws his name he will find himself the subject of a Council resolution which demands he step down given that his nomination did not get the required eight votes on September 16th. McWilliams and Hieftje could continue with the pretense that McWilliams is actually a member of the DDA Board (he has attended meetings already). They might even claim McWilliams should be afforded the opportunity for a public hearing. Alas, that will mean that everyone will have the opportunity to speak, including Council members and the public. That may not be what either John Hieftje or Albert Mcwilliams wants, because either Council members or the members of the public could read from McWilliams’s own blog, show the photos he had posted or repeat his Tweets—all to stunning effect. Though McWilliams attempted to delete or hide the offending materials sometime after the September 3rd Council meeting, many who visited his sites prior to his efforts to cleanse them obviously took computer screen shots.

It’s worth noting that during public commentary resident Peter Zetlin reported to Council that he’d spoken to Maura Thompson, the Director of the Main Street Association about her personal endorsement of McWilliams, as well as the endorsement of the Main Street Association. Zetlin reported that when asked if she and her organization stood behind McWilliams as the best candidate for the position, Thompson had refused to answer the question.

“Perhaps,” Zetlin posited, “she didn’t answer because she’s embarrassed.”

Also during public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Mary Underwood stunned the dozens of people in Council chambers by simply ending her measured and thoughtful public comments about the McWilliams appointment with a quote from Albert McWilliams’s own Twitter account: “Shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

The gasps from those present were audible, and several people muttered that McWilliams did not, indeed, seem the best choice to sit on the Board of the DDA. John Hieftje, who’d made a joke about “profanity on the Internet” when defending McWilliams on September 3rd, turned several shades of red, and stared wide-eyed at Underwood, obviously mortified. Council member Jane Lumm, stunned, put her hand over her mouth and shook her head slowly.

Ward 1 Council member Sabra Briere, who’d justified her tie-breaking vote in favor of McWilliams’s proposed appointment by saying she’d read through the allegedly offensive materials and had found nothing that bothered her, found very important things to read on her computer screen as Underwood left the podium. Maybe, just maybe, Briere was pondering what she should do with the ice cream in her freezer at home.

At the end of the October 7th Council meeting, McWilliams nomination was “reopened” in order to consider it at the final Council meeting in October. One imagines Hieftje is planning to try to sort out the mess he made. He’d do better to get to the store and stock up on antacids.

Ward 1 City Council challenger Jeff Hayner has landed the quiet support of several City Council Democrats. Ward 2 City Council incumbent Jane Lumm has the unabashed support of several City Council Democrats. So why are card-carrying members of the Michigan Democratic Party coming out in support of the Independent candidates in Wards 1 and 2 instead of the Democrats in those races?

Ward 4 Council member elect Jack Eaton, who is set to be sworn into office in November, is effusive when speaking about Independent Jane Lumm. “Jane Lumm,” he says with a grin, “is just so damn good at what she does. It’s intimidating.”

Ward 3 Democrat Stephen Kunselman, who’s also endorsing Lumm, told a gathering of Lumm supporters “Jane Lumm is the most ethical member of City Council.”

Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin is equally complimentary when speaking of incumbent Lumm. “Jane is committed to the people of this city, to their health and safety, and is absolutely the best candidate for the job. She’s proved that over and over.”

Ward 1 Council member Sumi Kailasapathy admires Lumm, as well, and has collaborated with her on several resolutions. “Jane has done what she promised to do in 2011. She focuses on services and fiscal responsibility. We need that.”

Kailasapathy, a CPA, has been unrelenting in her efforts to make sure city staff present accurate financial data to the public. Most recently, she asked for information regarding the projected savings associated with single-stream recycling. She was dismayed to discover that some savings calculations by city staff overseeing the recycling program were off by as much as 100 percent.

Unlike fellow Independent Jane Lumm, Jeff Hayner (right) doesn’t have the public endorsements of Democrats Kailasapathy, Eaton or Anglin, but he has their financial support which, in political circles, speaks volumes.

“I donated $250 to Jeff Hayner’s campaign,” says Eaton, who is a long-time member of the Michigan Democratic Party and a labor lawyer. In past elections, Eaton has donated to Ward 1 incumbent Sabra Briere. “Sabra’s votes have been disappointing,” he explains, noting that the Ward 1 Council member at one time cast votes in support of issues about which he cares, but that she has since moved away from support of local transit, parks, emergency services and other “sensible priorities.”

Like Eaton, Mike Anglin is prepared to support Independent Jeff Hayner’s campaign financially, as well. “I’m there,” says Anglin. “Sabra’s been in John’s (Hieftje) pocket for quite some time now there are so many important issues facing Council, particularly development issues and issues relating to our parks. We need people willing to stand up for transparency, ethics, the parks, the people of the city. I believe Jeff will do that.”

On the afternoon of September 29th Jeff Hayner and his family welcomed about 35 supporters to a party in the balcony area of the Necto. In the place of pounding music was political banter. It was a chance for Hayner to talk about downtown development, and his desire to repeal the zoning of the city’s public land (parkland) for transportation uses, a 2010 zoning change Briere voted to support.

“I will never vote to use parkland for transit. That land belongs to us all,” said Hayner during a speech. The crowd burst into applause. It was a group that included Ward 1 Council member Sumi Kailasapathy.

“Sabra and I are on opposite sides of many important votes, and this troubles me,” said Kailasapathy. As for Hayner, she says: “He supports fiscal responsibility. I am confident that Jeff will protect our parkland and make sure that mayoral appointees avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. These things are so very important.”

Kailasapathy is referring to the recent controversial, and perhaps soon-to-be-reversed appointment of Quack!Media owner Albert McWilliams to the Board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kailasapathy was incensed over materials she saw on McWilliams’s website—degrading images of women. She was also upset that McWilliams had used a crude term that describes female genitalia to refer to Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman. A2Politico posted a piece on September 4th about the content on McWilliams’s website and Twitter account.

“It’s outrageous that he was nominated and that he was confirmed,” says Kailasapathy. “What if he had referred to someone he disagreed with using the “N” word? These kinds of hostile behaviors cannot be tolerated under any circumstances from elected or appointed officials.”

Briere cast the deciding vote in favor of McWilliams’s appointment.

McWilliams, for his part, removed links to the offensive materials, a move Jack Eaton interpreted to mean it was understood the materials were offensive and that McWilliams was trying to hide them from the public.

“Look, McWilliams would never have gotten my vote,” says Jeff Hayner. “What he puts on his website is up to him, but if you want to represent the city you can’t expect to do that kind of stuff and get appointed. Plus there’s a pretty clear conflict of interest in his work for AATA. I support an ethics policy for Council members and board members.”

Eaton, Kunselman, Kailasapathy, Lumm and Anglin all support an ethics policy for Council members. Sabra Briere, when discussing conflicts of interest surrounding McWilliams’s appointment, noted that the appearance of conflicts didn’t bother her.

At his event at the Necto, Hayner mentioned the proposed 5 Year Solid Waste Plan backed by Briere, as a member of the Environmental Commission. That plan calls for a reduction in the frequency of garbage collection to twice monthly from weekly collection.

“If we get half the service, we should pay half the solid waste millage,” said Hayner. “People I talk to when I go door-to-door don’t want their garbage sitting around for two weeks. Why are we always talking about cutting services? We pay a lot in property taxes. I want to see us get the best value for our tax dollars.”

Briere supported a tax hike to pay for sidewalk replacement, has voted repeatedly over the past three years to cut services, raise water and sewer fees, and in the most recent round of budget discussions, refused to support proposals put forth by Jane Lumm to increase police staffing and restore leaf collection. She also refused to support Lumm’s proposal to expand parkland protection by requiring a vote before parkland may be leased.

Briere voted in support of efforts to lease river front parkland for development and transportation purposes.

Hayner talked about a plan to use private funds for public art. “There are plenty of examples of how that model can work all over town,” he said. “We need to use money from the water and sewer fund for our sewers and money from the street fund to repair our roads.”

This was a subtle jab at Briere who, in response to a resolution sponsored by her Ward 1 colleague Kailasapathy and Jane Lumm which would have required the return hundreds of thousands of dollars skimmed from the water and sewer and street repair funds by the Percent for Art program to those funds, voted no.

“I love art,” said Hayner. “I have a degree in art, but we have to spend our money more wisely and look to other ways to pay for public art.”

One former Briere supporter, a Democrat, said she planned to go door-to-door with Jeff Hayner. “I am just sick of how things are going in the city. Sewage spills, terrible roads, high taxes and on our street we have had several break-ins. It’s time for someone new on Council. Hieftje and Sabra Briere hasve been there long enough. I’m giving Jeff’s yard signs to my neighbors and passing out his literature.”

Toppling an incumbent is difficult, but Ann Arbor voters tossed out long-term incumbents in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 primary and general elections. Jack Eaton toppled 14-year Ward 4 incumbent Marcia Higgins by a huge margin.

None of the Council Democrats backing Hayner seem concerned about what will happen if Briere manages to hold on to her seat. “She doesn’t work collaboratively now. What would change?” asked one exasperated Council member.

As for Jeff Hayner, he’s having fun. “If I get some of these issues out there, like the 1,4 dioxane plume, and Sabra does something, really that’s a win-win. People I talk to are glad to have a choice on the ballot.”

The Ann Arbor League of Women Voters is hosting a Candidates Forum Live on CTN Channel 19 – Wednesday, October 2nd at 7 p.m. It will be a question and answer session for a half hour live broadcast. There will also be a Town Hall Forum at Arrowwood Clubhouse Wednesday, October 16th at 7 p.m. Council Member Briere and challenger Jeff Hayner will answer questions from the audience at this town-hall format meeting.

Kirk Westphal’s campaign fundraising letter made its way to A2Politico from a thoroughly irked recipient who found claims made about incumbent Ward 2 Independent Jane Lumm galling. The letter, signed by Downtown Development Authority Board member Joan Lowenstein and former County Drain Commish Janis Bobrin, could qualify as a project funded by the Percent for Art program—it’s a real piece of work. For starters, JoLo and JaBob write (in boldface, no less): “…We’re supporting Kirk Westphal, the only Democrat running for 2nd Ward Councilmember of November 5.” Evidently, the ladies think that Ward 2 residents who might be persuaded to donate to Kirk Westphal’s campaign are somewhat chuckle-headed. Of course Westphal is the only Democrat running in the general election. He was the only Democrat who ran in the primary election. In 2012, President Barack Obama’s campaign team could have written the same thing about him. Imagine a similarly-worded letter signed by former President Jimmy Carter, who endorsed Obama in 2012: “I’m supporting Barack Obama, the only Democrat running for the office of President on November 7th.” 

Then imagine the hooting, knee-slapping laughter and derision from the mainstream media around the world, not to mention the collective eye roll from tens of thousands of U.S. government teachers at high schools across the country. A lawyer admitted to the Bar in Michigan and Florida, one imagines Lowenstein passed her Constitutional Law class at the University of Florida College of Law sometime after the Constitution was ratified, and so understands that in a partisan general election there can be only one Democrat. Bobrin was a Drain Commissioner, and so might be excused from responsibility—except that she was the only Democrat running for Drain Commissioner many times and, one hopes, still remembers the primary elections in which she participated.

Westphal’s fundraising letter gets better. Lowenstein revises history when she writes: “On development issues, Kirk advocates for early public input to ensure our city reflects the desires of our citizens.” Really? Holy 413 East Huron, Moravian, City Place, Near North and North Maple, Planning Man.

Westphal (right) serves on the Planning Commission. He also served on the Mayors Design Guidelines Task Force that helped reshape the city’s D1-D2 zoning regulations that have resulted in out-sized developments being proposed and built on the fringes of residential neighborhoods, much to the dismay of residents. During the process, dozens of residents spoke of the need for buffer zones between dense development and residential neighborhoods. Between 2009 and 2013, when City Council finally sent the flawed planning regulations shaped by Westphal and his fellow Task Force members back to the Planning Commission for re-examination, Planning Commish Westphal voted to send one out-sized development after another to City Council for approval, despite almost constant protest by neighborhood groups and their lawyers.

In an August 2013 survey of residents conducted by a consultant hired to mitigate the D1-D2 zoning disaster, the consultant reported, “Based on public meetings, interviews and survey responses, here is a general consensus that D1 zoning is not optimal. In particular, many people feel that the buildings allowed in D1 zoning districts are too tall and massive.” The consultant also concluded, “Possible solutions include rezoning making changes to the D1 zoning – such as allowing diagonals as a tool for controlling building shape, lowering the height or adjusting setbacks – so that it worked better with the adjacent neighborhoods.” Her advice cost $24,000.

An interesting part of his fundraising letter seemingly takes a swipe at John Hieftje as well as several other of Westphal’s endorsers who have routinely told the public since 2010 that Ann Arbor is doing splendidly, thank you. Westphal’s letter says, “We need the kind of leadership in City Hall to move us beyond merely treading water and move this city forward to a more prosperous future.” Honestly, who can disagree with Westphal about the need for that kind of leadership in Ann Arbor? It’s just out of the ordinary for a candidate to take swipes at his own Council member endorsers by saying they have served up leadership that has the city treading water, financially speaking.

JoLo and JaBob save the best for last. In their penultimate paragraph we read that, “Our incumbent councilmember does not view business growth as a good thing.” When asked if he stood by this assertion, Kirk Westphal refused to respond. Video from the May 20, 2013 City Council meeting explains why Westphal refused to respond concerning his assertion that the incumbent “does not view business growth as a good thing.” The video of that meeting contains a record of the vote on resolution 13-0515, Resolution to Form the Ann Arbor Economic Collaborative Task Force. In the video we hear Ward 2 incumbent Council member Jane Lumm thank her council colleagues Sally Petersen and Marcia Higgins for bringing the resolution forward. Lumm says, “I think it’s an excellent step forward.” She goes on to say that the Ann Arbor Economic Collaborative Task Force fulfills Council’s desire to move forward with economic development. She ends by saying: “I’m glad to be supporting this.” In the video you can watch her vote yes, in favor of business growth.

Not only is Westphal’s letter deliberately misleading voters, it raises serious questions about his ability to lead. If he read the letter prior to its release and did not check Lowenstein’s facts, he acted foolishly. If he did not see the letter prior to its release, he acted irresponsibly and unprofessionally. If he can’t stand up to his campaign supporters and keep them from making him look sleazy, what’s the guy gonna do on City Council when everybody and his brother is pressuring him to do this or that, say this or that, vote for this or that? Council member Jane Lumm has a voting record, and using that to craft a campaign message to convince voters that the incumbent needs to be replaced by someone with different views and priorities is perfectly reasonable. For instance, Westphal’s letter accurately says that Lumm “voted against the budget.” She did vote against the 2013-2014 budget, which passed 10-1. AnnArbor.com reported Lumm’s vote and her comments: “Lumm reminded her peers on council they listed public safety as a top priority heading into this year’s budget process. She said she didn’t see that reflected in the budget. The (police) chief has identified the path forward — proactive rather than reactive policing, but that needs funding and staffing that we consciously decided tonight not to provide for. Because of that, I’m sorry, I can’t support this budget.”

In his letter, Westphal writes that he believes Ann Arbor “can—and should—strive to be competitive on a national and even international stage.” Those are lofty goals, excellent goals for a community which Westphal has said he believes is extraordinary. In order to get there, Ann Arbor needs leaders who can bring game to the City Council table, beginning with extraordinary ethics and steadfast honesty. If Kirk Westphal is prepared to lie (or worse still, to let his campaign supporters lie for him) to get money in order to run for office, how might he behave if actually elected? When given the opportunity to do so, the “only Democrat running for office on November 5″ should have taken responsibility for the fundraising letter, apologized for fabrication presumably penned by himself, Lowenstein and/or Bobrin, then apologized to his opponent and Ward 2 voters. That would have demonstrated world-class leadership and Democratic values.

At the moment, Kirk Westphal looks like a follower, a drone, if you will, who would serve as a loyal member of the shrinking Hieftje Hive Mind Collective. However, over the past three election cycles Ann Arbor voters have proven themselves increasingly difficult to assimilate.  Political resistance, as is turns out, is not futile, even when there is only one Democrat running in the general election.

Ward 2 City Council challenger Kirk Westphal sent out a fundraising letter that includes several interesting claims, one of which is he is the “only Democrat” running in the Ward 2 November general election. Well, yes. For those who were passing notes or snoozing the entire time during Civics 101 in high school, he is the “only” Democrat because there was a primary election and, as is wont to happen, the winner of the primary election moves on to the general election. Westphal was unopposed in the primary election so, he was the “only” Democrat who ran in the primary, as well. Imagine the awesomeness of being the only Democrat in the general election after being the only Democrat on the ballot during the primary election. What. Are. The. Chances?

Jane Lumm, a Republican Council member in the late 90s, ran as an independent candidate in 2011 and beat Democratic incumbent Stephen Rapundalo. Lumm says she and her husband found the increasingly conservative views of the national Republican party difficult to relate to. Jane Lumm is a fiscal conservative, and a social progressive; she is not a Libertarian. In the partisan politics of the GOP and DCCC, Jane Lumm is a political fish without a pond, but fortunately she lives in Ann Arbor, where fish without ponds find creeks, streams and other places to swim.

On September 22nd Lumm kicked off her campaign at a gathering at Paesano’s. It’s an apt choice of locations, if one understands that in Italian the word paesano, the dialectal form of compaesano means “compatriot.” One paesano greeting another? You come from the same region of Italy, say, Lazio or Apulia. At Jane Lumm’s event, there were plenty of paesani, politicos from the same region of fiscal responsibility, social and environmental progressivism. Ward 1 Democratic Council member Sumi Kailasapathy was there; she is endorsing Lumm. Ward 3 Democratic Council member Stephen Kunselman attended, as well. Ward 4 Democratic Council member-elect Jack Eaton, who has endorsed Lumm’s candidacy, showed up to help kick off the re-election of the Council member whom Eaton has said “is a gift to the City.” City Council Ward 5 Democrat Mike Anglin, too, has thrown his support behind his colleague, Jane Lumm.

As Lumm began her speech, she made a point of welcoming her Council colleagues, beginning with Kunselman. The Ward 3 politico, fresh off a tough re-election campaign which he won by fewer than 2 percentage points, smiled and asked Lumm if he could speak.

“I want to announce that I am endorsing Jane Lumm,” said Kunselman, his arm around Lumm’s waist. “There is no other more ethical Council member than Jane,” he said, looking out at the crowd of 50 people gathered.

Kunselman, in six years on City Council, has never endorsed in a Council primary or City Council general election—much to the irritation of Council colleagues. Some find his attempts to stay “neutral” misguided, particularly in light of the fact that political attacks against him by John Hieftje and members of the Board of the Downtown Development Authority, have escalated over the past four years.

Lumm’s kick-off speech centered on the need to keep moving Ann Arbor in the direction of fiscal responsibility and toward providing excellent services. She pointed out that, with the election of Jack Eaton, the focus of the majority of Council members has shifted toward the support of fiscal responsibility, robust public input, governmental transparency, local transit, pro-active safety services, the protection of parkland and sensible development.

Jane Lumm and challenger Kirk Westphal aren’t paesani, and not just because of their differing political affiliation.

The “only Democrat” in the Ward 2 race has cast votes in favor of repurposing parkland for development, and public-private partnerships. The public-private partnership scam is a nifty little bit of model legislation dreamed up by the ultra-right wing organization ALEC and embraced by many of the “Democrats” listed as endorsers of Kirk Westphal on his fundraiser letter. In the public-private partnership, public money is used to subsidize private developers. If the development fails, taxpayers are left holding the bag. The private developer is off to her/his next public-private partnership, developer fees in hand. The scam has about as much to do with “partnership” as boxing has to do with playing the French horn, and about as much to do with Democratic party principles as Rush Limbaugh.

Jane Lumm does not support repurposing parkland or using parkland for transit. In fact, she sponsored a resolution to expand the Charter-mandated protections guaranteed to our parkland to include leasing. The resolution was shot down by Democrats, including one Democrat who co-sponsored the resolution, Ward 1 Council candidate Sabra Briere.

While Westphal voted against the Fuller Road train station (Tip o’ the keyboard to James D’Amour), he is from a political planet where Democrats embrace ALEC model legislation and the development of parkland.

According to Jane Lumm’s campaign website and literature her top priority is public safety. Ann Arbor Police Chief John Seto has told Council and the media that he doesn’t have enough officers to police “proactively.” Ann Arbor residents wait sometimes for hours for police to show up to non-emergency calls. A 2012 report on our city’s Fire Department response times revealed they do not meet national standards.

On his website Kirk Westphal’s top priority is listed as “economic development.” He writes, “it funds the growing costs of our core services and helps maintain a healthy budget.” Economic development is important. However, what Westphal doesn’t acknowledge is that the “growing costs of our core services” are the result of spiraling legacy costs for retirees. Jane Lumm writes in her palmcard, “I have led the efforts to begin transitioning the city employee’s pension plan from a defined benefit plan to a lower cost, more sustainable….defined contribution plan.”

Westphal’s proposed solution to this serious financial problem is to generate more tax revenue in order to continue to fund the understated and unsustainable pension liability our city already has, a pension debt that could top $400,000,000 dollars. Political insiders are waiting for council candidates to demand that rosy assumptions about the pension fund, such as the assumption that the investments will earn an annual 7 percent return through 2024, be adjusted to reflect fiscal reality, and that the city’s true unfunded liability be calculated.

The challenger’s second priority is “to formalize an ongoing dialog with neighborhood groups to brainstorm neighborhood improvements, troubleshoot problems early on, and help cultivate the next generation of city leaders.” In other words, Kirk Westphal as an elected leader is going to communicate with his constituents. We’re talking about elected office to the 5th largest city in Michigan, to one of the “smartest” cities in the United States. Kirk Westphal is really telling Ward 2 voters that he’ll “communicate” with them, and that’s a reason to vote for him? Well, on the other hand, he did send out a letter in which he writes he is the only Democrat running in the general election. Thank the City Clerk for small miracles.

In her previous run for City Council, Lumm raised over $20,000, a formidable war chest that Westphal is unlikely to match. Money, as we saw in Stephen Kunselman’s Ward 3 race, is not everything. His challenger, soon-to-be former Park Advisory Commission Chair Julie Grand, out-spent Kunselman two-to-one and still lost. In 2010, state representative candidate Ned Staebler out-fundraised winner Jeff Irwin.

One of Lumm’s campaign workers perhaps inadvertently put his finger on what will win Jane Lumm re-election to Ann Arbor City Council—her opponent’s efforts to paint the incumbent as obstructionist and overly quizzical.

“I was at a Ward 2 door, a Democrat, who said he’d already been canvassed by a Westphal worker. The home owner said the Westphal supporter had described Jane as a ‘trouble-maker” who ‘asks questions all the time’ and ‘won’t go along with anything.’” At this point the Lumm supporter chuckled. The homeowner, as it turns out, had reported telling the Westphal canvasser that he wanted a Council representative who asked questions and didn’t simply go along with everything. “That’s what Democratic governance is all about,” said the Lumm supporter.

In November 2011, Jane Lumm trounced Hieftje ally Stephen Rapundalo. In December 2011, Rapundalo supporter, former judicial candidate, former Ward 2 Democratic Council member and current DDA Board member Joan Lowenstein published an essay in The Ann magazine in which she called Ward 2 voters “old, stingy and Republican.”

It was JoLo who signed Westphal’s recent fundraising letter sent to Ward 2 residents urging them to send a few bucks to Kirk in part, yes, because he is “the only Democrat” running in the November 2013 general election. As Simpson’s character Lionel Hutz reminds us, “There is the truth, and then there is the truth.” Lowenstein, who one suspects may be a graduate of the Lionel Hutz School of Law, has since 2010 thrown her support behind losing City Council candidate paesani in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

by P.D. Lesko

In 2009, AnnArbor.com Kontent King Tony Dearing announced the “future of journalism in Ann Arbor”:

“Ding. Dong. The Witch is dead,” wrote an A2Politico reader in response to a December 2012 piece about the falling readership of AnnArbor.com. On September 4, 2013, MLive President Dan Gaydou announced AnnArbor.com would be closed. He said: “Integrating Ann Arbor with its other media properties across the state enables MLive Media Group to leverage our unified strengths, ultimately offering readers a better news experience, both online and in print.”

Former AnnArbor.com VP Laurel Champion told Deadline Detroit: “It’s as much an organizational issue as anything else. According to Champion, now general manager of southeast Michigan for MLive, nobody is going to lose their job and none of the content is going to change. AnnArbor.com had just been able to avoid the larger consolidation of Advance’s Michigan properties under MLive.com in 2011. About a year ago, some of AnnArbor.com’s sports coverage was moved to MLive; as of this Thursday, the rest moves, too.” AnnArbor.com was launched as a bold, new experiment in digital journalism. Advance abandoned a 174-year-old print brand (Ann Arbor News), and tried to replace it with AnnArbor.com. Now their reversing that strategy.

Part of why the news blog is being shuttered is because AnnArbor.com was supposed to build an engaged audience. However, A2Politico revealed in December 2012 that  the site went from hosting 2 million unique visitors per month in January 2011 to hosting just 557,000 unique visitors per month in June 2012—a shocker confirmed by MLive’s Dan Gaydou. About six percent of the site’s visitors generated the majority of the comments.

In March 2011 AnnArbor.com executive Matt Kraner emailed Crain’s Detroit that he was: “quite pleased with our (year over year) traffic growth. Kraner claimed that average daily unique users had improved from 42,613 in January 2010 to 68,045 in January 2011, or that AnnArbor.com hosted over 2 million unique users each month. If Kraner was telling the truth, between March 2011 to June 2012—in the space of 15 months—AnnArbor.com lost a whopping 72 percent of its daily unique readers, down from 68,045 in March 2011 (Kraner’s claim) to 18,566 in June 2012 (Gaydou’s confession).

David Askins editor of the AnnArborChronicle.com, who, together with his wife Mary Morgan, often criticized AnnArbor.com, and they didn’t shy away from yet another opportunity to take a swipe. Askins told a reporter from the Neiman Lab, “It’s just that AnnArbor.Com is a magnificently dumb name to print on a masthead and to deliver to people’s doorsteps. And it took four years for that basic insight finally to sink in.”

Meanwhile John Hilton at the Ann Arbor Observer reported visions of advertising revenues to be wrestled away from MLive: “We do see an advertising opportunity in the incredibly low print circulation numbers released as part of the announcement: they now print fewer issues in an entire week than the old Ann Arbor News printed in a single day. That confirms what our ad staff has been telling us — that new advertisers are coming to the Observer because they’re not getting the response they want from annarbor.com.” Never mind that the Ann Arbor News went digital precisely because print advertising revenues were falling, and Hilton’s business model (free distribution supported by ad sales) is as outdated as the Victrola.

Ryan Chittum, who writes for the Columbia Journalism Review, predicted in a conversation, that Advance would never close AnnArbor.com. Chittum had come to Ann Arbor to write a piece about AnnArbor.com and its digital first model. He was barred from the AnnArbor.com newsroom, and kept away from staffers. His somewhat snarky piece about the shuttering of AnnArbor.com appears here. Chittum pulls no punches: “Advance is now about to fold AnnArbor.com (the website) into MLive.com, the company’s Michigan portal based on its hideous website template.”

Over the past four years, the AnnArbor.com “model” has been roasted alive by media analysts, reporters, readers and academics alike. During those four years, the reviled model has been “exported” to other Advance marketplaces, including New Orleans and Cleveland. In New Orleans, after a competitor muscled in, the News Orleans Times Picayune — re-branded as NOLA.com — went back to seven day delivery of its newspaper. Reactions to Advance’s money-saving digital first “model” among readers have been startlingly similar, with subscribers falling away. When the Ann Arbor News was shuttered in July 2009, it had a Sunday circulation of over 52,000 and a weekday circulation of about 40,000. Two years later, AnnArbor.com had lost 35 percent of its weekday subscribers.

After A2Politico did a piece that combed through AnnArbor.com’s media kit, the company took the electronic version of it down, requiring anyone who wanted to see the information to send an email to a marketing representative.

On September 12, 2013 AnnArbor.com will be shuttered as a stand alone site and “brand.” The operation and staff are to be absorbed by MLive.com. At least that’s what the public is being told. The truth is that many of AnnArbor.com reporters are leaving or being let go. One of the site’s best reporters, Kellie Woodhouse, is staying. Woodhouse, hired to replace higher education reporter David Jesse, who left AnnArbor.com for the Detroit Free Press in 2011, does an excellent job covering the University of Michigan and, to a lesser extent, EMU and Washtenaw Community College. Her coverage of the search for a new superintendent to lead the AAPS was simply superb. She live-blogged during interviews of the candidates, and provided videos, as well (tip o’ the keyboard to Kelli Woodhouse).

Another of the site’s other excellent writers, Jessica Webster, Community Content Coordinator, is transitioning over to MLive, she said in a message. Webster’s food writing is well-crafted, creative and wide-ranging. From beer to heirloom tomatoes and recipes for serious comfort food, Webster’s pieces are engaging, informative and, yes, tasty.

Advance destroyed a 174-year-old newspaper in order to give birth to a “new” model that focused on digital journalism. They cut the paper’s seven-day print run down to two days per week. In retrospect, the model wasn’t new, nor was it better local journalism. Any publisher will tell you that cutting overhead, including printing and delivery costs, is a way to restructure a publication’s finances. Money is saved and a portion of it shifted to creating digital delivery platforms.  Ryan Chittum agrees. He writes, “I’ve argued that the Advance plan was effectively a liquidation of the paper that could make more money riding down declining revenues than through a sale.”

The million dollar question is whether Advance will eventually implement some kind of a paywall at MLive considering the successes other mainstream news sites have had asking readers to pay to read online content.

The closing of AnnArbor.com was no surprise. AnnArbor.com executives and Advance higher ups churned out press release-like copy to keep up the facade of a growing, healthy news organization that claimed to “reach” 69 percent, then 68 percent, then 67 percent of all Washtenaw County adults over the age of 18. Advance and AnnArbor.com higher ups often stiff-armed members of the national media who asked for more detailed information or access to AnnArbor.com staffers and the newsroom. They did so up until the end. MLive advertising information now claims that advertisers can reach “51 percent of Washtenaw County adults” advertising in the Ann Arbor News and on MLive.

So why did Advance close down AnnArbor.com? In publishing, the formula is simple: turn a profit or fold. Deep pocketed parent companies are less inclined than ever before to throw good money after bad. The New York Times just divested itself of The Boston Globe, unable to “leverage” that “brand” into, well, an actual profit margin. Ann Arbor city is left with Annarbor.com re-rebranded as the Ann Arbor News, which Advance plans to publish twice weekly, A2Journal (published by another large media company that declared bankruptcy several months ago), the Ann Arbor Observer, AnnArborChronicle.com, The Ann, The Michigan Daily and the Detroit papers. It’s a hodgepodge of media coverage that requires readers to search out information.

A regular AnnArbor.com reader summed up the site’s coverage of local news somewhat pointedly in a comment in response to the press release announcing the closure of AnnArbor.com:

I’ll surely miss the good old days of annarbor.com.  Remember the Nate Bomey kiss kiss coverage of SPARK? The wonderful lynch mob coverage of the 2010 Mayor’s race? The free pass ‘local’ Rick Snyder got in the 2010 Repbublican primary and the 2010 election? The great ‘he’s just folks’ article on a local  militia member? The city employee Lucy Ann Lance ‘interview’ with her boss at the time, the Mayor, that raised the term ‘soft ball journalism’ to an entirely new level? Their coverage of the court appearance date  for the ex-DDA member that was almost like a Three Stooges skit? All the hollow promises that were made when the Ann Arbor News was shut down, primarily to get rid of their older staff members in a neat, efficient lawsuit protection sort of way? The lovely way comments were ‘disappeared’ if you were critical of reporting lapses? The spelling and gramatical errors that dotted the stories? The photographer who made up the story about the homeless man death for a tear jerking column, only to discover the guy wasn’t really dead just yet? The biased reporting on the anti-Mayor’s Party slate for council? The ‘if it happens on a weekend we’ll get to it on Tuesdsay’ reporting style for crime stories? Last week’s coverage of Labor Day in the Sunday print edition that included not one story or word on Labor Day? If you read some of the comments on yesterday’s dot com you’d think this was the death of the New York Times or Congress repealing freedom of press from the Bill of Rights. The return to calling it the Ann Arbor News is just a cherry on the top of the cake. It was a dishonest business failure that resulted in weak and cowardly journalism for the most part and the move to MLive and being the “News’ again isn’t going to change anything. Anyone who believes yesterday’s press releases should call me, I have some Pall poisoned swamp land I’d love to sell you.

–30–

For example, one myth we busted was: Welfare recipients only live in poorer, urban communities, not the suburbs or more affluent areas of the state.

Here are the facts:

Michigan residents are struggling to put food on their tables and pay their bills in communities statewide. The DHS has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of families seeking temporary assistance, including in Michigan more affluent communities.

Today, it is more likely than ever before that your relative, friend or neighbor is receiving benefits because that pain is being felt everywhere.

Here is a comparison of city-suburb benefit recipients from July 2008 to April 2010:

In Saginaw County:

• Saginaw saw a 33 percent increase in Medicaid recipients – from 27,995 to 37,212; and a 14 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 31,409 to 35,882.

• Birch Run saw a 31 percent increase in Medicaid recipients – from 994 to 1,304; and a 43 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 792 to 1,134.

• Frankenmuth saw a 22 percent increase in Medicaid recipients – from 389 to 475; and a 34 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 202 to 270.

In Genesee County:

• Flint saw a 39 percent increase in Medicaid recipients – from 43,682 to 60,679; and a 12 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 56,282 to 62,804.

• Flushing saw a 41 percent increase in Medicaid recipients – from 2,213 to 3,129; and a 48 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 1,741 to 2,575.

• Grand Blanc saw a 56 percent increase in Medicaid recipients from 3,218 to 5,035; and a 72 percent increase in food assistance benefits – from 2,457 to 4,232.

Here is another fact:

There were more than one million foreclosures in Michigan from 2005 to 2009, according to the Michigan State Housing Developmental Authority. The statewide increase was 66.7 percent. For example, from 2005 to 2009:

In Saginaw County, foreclosures increased 51.9 percent – from 2,130 homes to 4,435 homes.

In Genesee County, foreclosures increased 62 percent – from 6,372 homes to 16,784 homes.

In Midland County, foreclosures increased 64.9 percent – from 435 homes to 1,241 homes.

Clearly, welfare recipients live in communities throughout Michigan.

Consider that myth busted.

The Saginaw event was the largest gathering of partners since DHS launched its Welfare 101: busting myths about welfare campaign on April 1 in Lansing. The goal of the campaign is to reduce widespread negative perceptions and show how valuable the welfare system is for so many Michigan residents, as well as to the state’s economy.

The DHS encourages you to do your part to educate the critics. For more information on the truth about welfare, please visit www.michigan.gov/welfare101.

The Detroit event featured Dana Weeks, a client receiving food assistance benefits, who knows that some people equate welfare to shame. It is an unfortunate truth that the DHS is striving to change.

And even though Weeks never imagined needing assistance at 57, he is not embarrassed to use his Bridge card at the grocery store – an act that makes many people hide their faces. Rather, he is thankful because he knows he would be worse off without the $200 a month he receives to fill his pantry.

“I know it’s temporary,” said the Detroit resident. “It’s a blessing. For some people, a lot of pride gets in the way, but welfare is there for them to fall back on.”

Weeks’ message is important. And it’s one that every Michigan resident must hear because the economic pain is being felt everywhere.

There is a belief that welfare recipients only live in poor, urban areas, while people living in the suburbs or wealthier areas of the state are immune to today’s economic struggles. This is a myth.

Trust me when I say that need does not discriminate. It does not recognize race, gender, religion, and certainly not whether a person lives in Detroit or Bloomfield Hills.

Michigan residents are struggling to put food on their tables and pay their bills in communities statewide. The DHS has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of families seeking temporary assistance, including those who live in Michigan’s more affluent suburban communities.

For example, communities such as Dearborn Heights, Livonia, St. Clair Shores and Bloomfield Hills each saw more than 60 percent increases in the number of people coming to us for food assistance. For Medicaid, each community saw more than a 30 percent increase.

Foreclosures are also affecting some of southeast Michigan’s more prosperous counties. Home foreclosures in most of these counties – Livingston, Macomb and Oakland – exceeded the statewide increase of 66.7 percent from 2005 to 2009.

Welfare recipients certainly do not only live in the state’s poor, urban areas. They come from all walks of life and live in communities statewide.

Consider that myth busted.

We prefer to deal with the facts because misunderstandings lead to myths, which create a stigma that may keep people truly in need – those with young children or the elderly – from asking for help. We want to put an end to that.

I encourage you to visit www.michigan.gov/welfare101 to learn the truth about welfare.

That’s a message I truly stand behind and want to share as the Michigan Department of Human Services earlier this week began a yearlong, statewide campaign to recruit foster and adoptive parents for the 16,000 children in Michigan’s foster care system.

We shared the news at a very successful event in Grand Rapids with our partners, Bethany Christian Services. You can see the video here: http://ow.ly/1FcKJ for Part 1; http://ow.ly/1FcSA for Part 2; http://ow.ly/1FcW9 for Part 3; http://ow.ly/1FcZw for Part 4; and http://ow.ly/1Fd2g for Part 5.

And if you want to see photos of some of the children who are currently available for adoption here in Michigan, visit www.miheart.org. 

Some say we’re asking foster parents to take on a big burden. But I say it’s an opportunity. Yes, we’re asking people to take on a huge responsibility, but as a father of five, I can tell you that you get a thousand times in love what you invest. 

As part of the campaign, DHS will run radio public service announcements and newspaper ads statewide in May for the foster and adoptive parent recruitment campaign. 

The public service announcements are part of a national Ad Council campaign – You don’t have to be perfect to be a perfect parent – developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Adopt Us Kids, which works to raise awareness about the need for foster and adoptive families, and supports state in their own efforts. They’ve allowed Michigan to use their messages and materials, and to route interested parents who contact them to the appropriate state contacts. 

The public service announcements use humor and everyday life situations to demonstrate that adopting a child from foster care isn’t about “being perfect,” but rather about the commitment demonstrated by normal interactions between any parent and a child in a loving parent/child relationship. They are running in May because it’s National Foster Care Month. 

For the past year, our department has undertaken significant reforms to make sure we’re doing our part to find safe, permanent and loving homes for the 16,000 children in Michigan’s foster care system. 

More children in Michigan’s foster care system are in permanent homes. That might mean they are reunited with their family, have been adopted or have a guardian. In fact, more than 3,000 children were adopted from foster care in 2009 – the highest number we’ve ever had. 

But the children who are in foster care, as well as their caregivers, get much better support today. For example, they have access to mental health services and prevention programs. 

For more information about the campaign, please visit www.michigan.gov/perfectparent. Additional resources include: www.adoptuskids.org or call toll-free 888-200-4005. For Spanish, visit www.adopte1.org or call toll-free 877-236-7831.

Welfare benefits contribute to local communities and represent an investment the nation has made in Michigan. In turn, those dollars have a significant economic impact on local communities.

DHS’ budget totals about $6 billion, of which about $1 billion is from Michigan tax sources. Generally speaking, the federal government funds benefits and Michigan funds the administration of the programs, such as food assistance.

In fiscal year 2009, DHS distributed:

• More than $2.1 billion in Food Assistance Program benefits to almost 2 million Michigan residents. These are dollars that were spent exclusively on food and related products in Michigan grocery stores, convenience stores and local markets. The more than $2 billion in federal benefits helped more than 1.7 million people access healthy foods.

• $362.9 million in Family Independence Program benefits to more than 120,000 families and households with minor children. Of this total, more than $300 million of the benefit dollars were provided by the federal government, not state taxes. These benefits help families pay rent and house payments, property taxes, utilities, clothing and other living costs, and the money is primarily spent in local communities.

• $317 million in Child Development and Care payments covering service for more than 191,000 children. These payments were made directly to small businesses and individuals that provided services for children from low-income families. The majority of these funds came from federal sources.

• $136.8 million in emergency energy payments for heat, electricity, heating fuel, furnace repairs and related services. These funds were paid to Michigan utilities and other businesses that provided energy services or products. All of the funding was federal.

• $16.9 million for non-energy emergency payments for relocation, home ownership, utilities and deposits, home repairs, burials and other services. More than $10 million came from federal sources and $6.6 million from state funds.

Here’s another fact:

DHS and a network of community action agencies and other partners saw an unprecedented influx of federal dollars in fiscal year 2009 that helped residents and created jobs throughout Michigan. Some examples:

Stimulus funding:

In 2009, Michigan received $36 million in grant funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) in addition to the department’s $23 million federal allocation.

The funds, all federal, support community action agencies that serve 489,000 low-income individuals each year with housing assistance, income tax preparation, food, transportation, employment assistance and economic development.

The DHS Weatherization Assistance Program received $243 million in federal stimulus funding to be delivered over three years.

The weatherization program helps low-income renters and homeowners save money on energy – typically as much as 25 percent or about $300 per year.

More than 4,800 low-income households received weatherization services such as insulation, furnace repair or replacement, and energy conservation education in the program year from April 2008 through March 2009.

Over the three-year period, the additional federal funding will enable 33,000 homes to be weatherized and will create 700 to 1,300 new jobs in local businesses that provide weatherization services.

Food assistance:

A new benefit increased Food Assistance Program benefits for many households starting in March 2010.

DHS will provide $1 in federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds to all households receiving food assistance. This will enable these households to qualify for the standard utility allowance when calculating benefits, regardless of their living arrangements. As a result, as many as 180,000 households that currently receive food assistance could see an increased benefit of about $88 per month.

This could put an estimated $16 million in additional direct food dollars into Michigan communities each month. DHS will provide every food assistance case with the $1 LIHEAP benefit on their Bridge card. DHS will provide the $1 on an annual basis to households receiving food assistance as long as there are federal funds available to support it.

We know that ever $5 of food benefits generates about $9.20 in economic activity in communities. We expect the additional direct food benefits put into communities could generate an estimated $360 million in annual economic activity, including through increased demand for goods and services.

Consider this myth busted.

The Michigan Department of Human Services on April 1 started an important campaign, Welfare 101: busting myths about welfare, to educate the public about true value of the welfare system.

Myth 02: Welfare is full of fraud and no one’s doing anything about it.

Here are the facts:

Clients who receive Food Assistance (FAP) benefits are restricted to purchasing food and related products. The federal Government Accountability Office estimates that for every $1 in food stamps, about 1 cent is obtained fraudulently. Families with children receiving cash under the Family Independence Program can spend the benefits as they choose. There are no legal or programmatic restrictions on these benefits, which recipients earn by participating in Work First activities, including developing and adhering to written plans to achieve independence.

Here’s another fact that busts this myth:

In fiscal year 2009, the Michigan Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General continued its focus on ensuring that public assistance is used for those with a legitimate need and expanded the department’s fraud prevention efforts. During that year the office:

* Completed 5,214 recipient fraud investigations in which agents identified fraud of $18.6 million. Recouped $4.90 for ever $1 spent investigating fraud.

* Denied, reduced or withdrew program benefits in 1,742 instances through the Front End Eligibility, the department’s fraud prevention program. Saved taxpayers $9.3 million.

* Expanded its Special Investigations Unit that performs the most complex investigations involving vendors, service providers and employee allegations. It completed 126 cases, identifying more than $1.3 million of alleged fraud.

* Partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Michigan State Police in multiple FAP trafficking investigations. In one instance, the investigation and arrests of four suspects associated with a Detroit-area convenience store resulted in the seizure of about $90,000 during the arrests. Some $670,000 in trafficking transactions has been associated with this convenience store; the owner was ordered to pay restitution.

* Contacted 7,730 child care providers and reviewed time and attendance records for compliance with Child Development and Care program requirements. As a result, 3,659 providers were terminated from the program for significant non-compliance. The efforts resulted in $6.6 million in cost savings to taxpayers.

* Was recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as first in the Midwest region for new fraud claims established, fraud claims recouped, amount of fraud determined and total disqualifications.

Anyone who suspects fraud in the welfare system is encouraged to report it by calling 800-222-8558 or at www.michigan.gov/dhs.

Consider that myth busted.

Myth 01: Welfare recipients are a drain on the system.

Here are the facts:

Today, it is more likely than ever before that your neighbor or relative collects one or more welfare benefits because of unemployment, home foreclosures, or child or adult abuse or neglect.

In fiscal year 2009, more than 2.5 million people in Michigan — more than 25 percent of the state’s residents — received one of five programs. That includes cash, food, medical, state disability or child development and care assistance.

Thousands more used benefits or services related to energy assistance, adult and child abuse or neglect, foster care or adoptions, home help services or something else making the real total greater than 25 percent.

Here’s another fact that busts this myth:

The average family receiving assistance is a single parent with two children. They receive help for a short time. On average, that family receives Family Independence Program (FIP) cash benefits averaging $415 a month, Food Assistance Program (FAP) benefits averaging $252 a month, Medicaid benefits and possibly Child Development and Care (child care) reimbursement for the time the parent works or attends required Work First activities. The average child care benefit is about $610 a month.

The parent probably works part-time earning minimum wage. Between part-time income and benefits, the family may live on $700 to $800 a month. This places the family at about 50 percent of the federal poverty income guideline for a family of three of about $1,526 a month.

These benefits are temporary; the average FIP client receives benefits for 21 months and the average FAP client receives benefits for 24 months.

Consider this myth busted.

Michigan’s ailing economic climate has caused an unprecedented number of families to seek help paying their bills or putting food on their tables. And with that staggering increase in demand for services come myths that are tarnishing the purpose of the welfare system.

It’s unfortunate that there are many myths and misconceptions about who receives help, what that help actually does and the requirements necessary for receiving that help. Those myths have, in turn, created a stigma that is likely preventing some people who truly need help, like families with young children and the elderly, to come to us.

We wanted to put a stop to that because today, it is more likely than ever before that our neighbors, friends or relatives collect one or more welfare benefits because of unemployment or home foreclosure.

You can also read our press release here: http://ow.ly/1u4dc.

You can also watch video from the event on YouTube here: http://ow.ly/1u2Dd

It’s a new kind of spring green. This is a significant amount of money that will help individuals and families access healthy food while also helping local businesses, like grocery stores, create jobs. A great big thanks to Mark Murray of Meijer and Jane Marshall of Food Bank Council of Michigan for joining us at the event. What great partners!

You can read our press release here: http://bit.ly/cIyb1Y.

You can also watch video from the event on YouTube here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeldkt8-KhI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfxJWYzw1jY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyUaPngGKwo

I just got back from making a presentation to the joint appropriations subcommittee at the Capitol.

I asked committee members to support the Department of Human Services fiscal year 2011 budget as introduced by Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm on Feb. 11 because it would help us meet the unprecedented increase in demand we’ve seen in the past year.

The governor’s budget would set aside about $7 billion for DHS in the new fiscal year starting in October. That’s an increase of more than $1 billion from the current year.

And it’s funding that we need to help Michigan’s vulnerable children, adults and families.

The proposed budget would help us meet both Michiganians’ child welfare and assistance needs. The governor’s budget would provide $39 million in new funds to pay for 495 child welfare staff, expand family preservation funding, and provide adoption subsidies and subsidized guardianship for children up to age 20.

It would also provide for 200 limited-term staff field staff and add full-time funding for 197 new staff. These staff would help manage our rising medicaid, food assistance and emergency relief caseloads.

All things considered, the governor’s budget provides us with resources to meet the increased needs of vulnerable adults, children and families in Michigan. If passed, the budget will enable us to meet our mission and lend a hand to the more than 2 million people that come to us for help.

In the meantime, Gov. Granholm also introduced a supplemental budget bill for the current year that – if passed – would help us meet the increased demand. The supplemental bill includes an additional $430 million that would restore the JET Plus program, provide funding for the 197 new field staff to start working this fiscal year, and cover other costs to help us provide services.

I ask you to tell your local legislators to support Gov. Granholm’s fiscal year 2011 budget and the supplemental budget as introduced. You can find your legislator’s contact information at www.michiganlegislature.org. Thanks for your support.