The Detroit News. December 19, 2017

MSU must commit to transparency

Michigan State University President Lou Anna Simon has taken the first two important steps in making things right with the scores of young women and girls who were molested by an MSU physician attached to the gymnastics program.

Simon, who has been under fire for her lack of urgency in addressing the university's possible culpability in the serial sexual assaults by Dr. Larry Nassar, issued a belated apology last week.

"I am truly sorry for the abuse you suffered, the pain it caused and the pain it continues to cause today," Simon said. "I'm sorry a physician who called himself a Spartan so utterly betrayed your trust and everything this university stands for."

At least 125 women have made criminal complaints against Nassar, and roughly 150 lawsuits have been filed in federal court that accuse the university and its officials, including Simon, of negligence in protecting the gymnasts from the doctor.

In addition to the apology, Simon announced a $10 million fund to help those who suffered abuse to seek counseling and other assistance.

These are important and necessary actions. The next is transparency.

Simon and MSU have not been forthcoming about whether anyone in the university was told of the molestations and failed to act on behalf of the girls.

The MSU trustees hired an outside investigator, former federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to explore the question. He concluded that Nassar "had everyone fooled" and said issuing a written report of his findings was unnecessary.

Frankly, that's absurd. The avoidance of a written report is clearly intended to avoid having the document subpoenaed when the liability cases go to trial.

And for Fitzgerald to say no one beyond Nassar had knowledge of the complaints against him flies in the face of the known facts. Clearly, Coach Kathy Klages knew of the concerns. She admonished the girls who raised them that they were overreacting, and discouraged other gymnasts from making similar complaints. She was suspended and then allowed to retire.

Nassar's boss, Dr. William Strampel, who until last week headed the MSU osteopathic program, apparently knew of the concerns as well. He wrote the doctor a letter advising him to change his tactics.

Strampel went on leave last week, but remains on staff and presumably on the payroll.

Both expressed support for Nassar even after girls began questioning his treatment.

Who else did the victims tell? That's a key question, but it's one MSU is showing no urgency to answer. There's nothing to indicate that Fitzgerald even interviewed the girls who charge that Nassar molested them. So how can he know that no one at the university had knowledge of what was happening?

Simon's apology is welcome, as is the financial assistance for the victims.

But what the girls want to know is who, if anyone, at MSU failed them. They deserve that answer.

___

Lansing State Journal. December 21, 2017

Gerrymander petition is a good example of engagement, grassroots democracy

A citizens group made headlines this week when it turned in petitions containing 425,000 signatures in hopes of getting on the ballot a constitutional amendment that will change the way political districts are drawn.

The change they propose is designed to combat gerrymandering, the practice of drawing legislative districts in a way that favors a particular political party - typically the one in power when redistricting occurs.

And with only 315,654 signatures necessary to meet state requirements, the group feels good about the issue making it onto the November 2018 ballot.

There is a lot to feel good about. Engaged citizens voluntarily coming together to elevate an issue to a statewide debate is a strong example of grassroots democracy.

"The people of Michigan are speaking loudly - they are tired of politicians, from both parties, and wealthy special interests who rig the system behind closed doors to benefit themselves," said Katie Fahey, president of Voters Not Politicians, the organization behind the petition drive.

Under current law, legislative districts are redrawn following each national census - the most recent of which was in 2010. Both chambers of the Legislature, which is responsible for redistricting, were Republican-controlled in 2011 when lines were redrawn. Republican Rick Snyder was in his first year as governor.

Under Voters Not Politicians' proposal, much of the politics would be removed or at the very least limited.

The constitutional amendment would establish a 13-member commission of citizens independent from the Legislature (or any other branch of government) to decide legislative districts. Among the members would be five independent voters along with four who identify as Republicans and four who identify as Democrats.

Elected officials, lobbyists and other political insiders would not be eligible to serve on the commission. In addition, public hearings would be held prior to approving proposed district maps by majority vote, with at least two votes from each of the three groups that make up the commission.

"The people of Michigan have come together to make it clear they want voters to choose their politicians, not the other way around," Fahey said.

They deserve the opportunity to see if the rest of the state agrees - this proposal should absolutely be on the ballot on Nov. 6.

___

Times Herald (Port Huron). December 22, 2017

Sign rules tinker with free speech

It is difficult to imagine that the city of Port Huron does not have enough sign ordinances. Signs are mentioned five or six dozen times in the city's zoning ordinances. From signs on roofs to signs on lawns, and from signs that blink to signs that dangle, there is a rule for everything.

And, so far as we can tell, enforcement of those rules is feeble at best. Portable signs, those lighted blights with the moveable letters, for instance, "may be used for a period not exceeding 30 consecutive days" yet we all know ones that have been chained in place since Thomas Edison invented the bulbs inside.

Digital, TV-on-a-stick billboards "must be placed a minimum of one mile ... from another LED or digital billboard" (Section 52-828). But those at either end of the northend connector are less than half a mile apart.

Temporary business signs (Section 52-820) may be displayed only on private property. Downtown sidewalks are not private property.

Additionally — and this is the one that rubs us raw — temporary business signs (paragraph H of Section 52-820) "shall only advertise goods, services, facilities, events or attractions pertaining to the principal use of the premises where located." In other words, every one of those signs abandoned curbside advertising telemarketing jobs, discount gym memberships, oil changes, landscaping services, the bar down around the corner and a better auto insurance company are illegal. Although each one is clearly marked with the name and phone number of the violator who placed it there, they persist. They're tolerated.

The city of Port Huron ignores those. Instead, it intends to regulate criticism.

It is making a mistake.

Instigated by Philip Risner, whose signs have taken his battle with City Hall to his front yard, Port Huron officials and lawyers are crafting an ordinance that would limit every residential property owner's ability to share his thoughts on his lawn.

City Council members' discussion of the proposed ordinance details specifically why it is unconstitutional. Scott Worden said it seemed wrong to prohibit someone from erecting a "Go Big Reds" sign in his front yard. Councilwoman Sherry Archibald said that was not the intent.

If she's right, she needs to read the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Reed v. the Town of Gilbert. In it, the court was explicit about the First Amendment and individual rights. Justices said cities may not "restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

If the city of Port Huron is going to tolerate a sign praising the Detroit Lions, it must also tolerate a sign airing Risner's grievances. If it is going to ignore the help-wanted signs at every street corner, going after Risner's signs will be worse than unconstitutional.

___

The Mining Journal (Marquette). December 23, 2017

Marquette botched handling of new waste agreement

As long as we are on a roll with questioning the city of Marquette for the way they handled filling Sara Cambensey's vacant seat, we have to also question the way the city commission handled the trash removal contract for Marquette residents

First off, they allowed Waste Management to submit a bid on a hybrid program using both bags and carts. This was not part of the bidding process, so they changed the rules of the game midstream by allowing one bidder the option of submitting a hybrid bid rather than requiring all groups to bid on the same option.

In our opinion, the city circumvented the bidding process by allowing one business the opportunity to bid on a hybrid system that was not included in the original bid proposal process. Commissioners also did not go with the lowest bid, and they now find themselves and the residents of Marquette with the curve ball of no longer being able to consider glass as a recyclable material.

Eagle Waste & Recycling representatives offered to meet with commissioners to outline their plans and answer questions, but only one commissioner, Peter Frazier, took the time to meet with them. Frazier was also the only commissioner to vote against Waste Management's hybrid bid. The other commissioners made their decisions without having a good working knowledge of what was being offered. The city of Marquette did have a department head meet with Eagle Waste & Recycling, but the city manager did not meet with them.

Second, they did not take the lowest bid for the new garbage disposal system for the city of Marquette. Eagle Waste & Recycling told us their bid was around $185,000 lower than Waste Management.

Third, Eagle Waste & Recycling was going to a single-steam recycling program, meaning residents would not have to separate any recyclables. You would put all recyclables in the same cart, including fiber and rigids, and they would pick up recycling every other week. They also would accept glass as part of the recycling program.

We met with Eagle Waste & Recycling and they seemed, in our opinion, to have by far the best recycling program for the city of Marquette. Just by the fact that Eagle Waste & Recycling, out of Eagle River, Wisconsin, made a bid, the cost to the city for waste removal went down by about $200,000. If the city had taken the bid from Eagle Recycling the cost to the city would have been reduced by closer to $385,000 per year. This is taxpayers' money and the city chose not to take the lower-cost bid.

A problem with the initial recycling contract surfaced recently when the city had to vote on an amended contract for recycling that no longer allows glass to be recycled. When the amended recycling contract was put in front of the commission, Commissioners Frazier and Mike Conley voted against it. Frazier voted no on the original contract and Conley said this amendment language would have changed his decision for the recent trash-hauling contract. Other commissioners were also unhappy with the change, but felt they had already made the agreement to make the change, so they had no choice but to support the amended recycling contract.

We believe that single-stream recycling is where most municipalities will be in the future. This is what Eagle Waste & Recycling offered in their contract. We also predict that the cost with Waste Management will exceed the contract language in the near future with a variety of surcharges being passed on to the city of Marquette.

We do understand why the city was concerned about supporting the Marquette County Landfill's recycling program, which is important for the entire county. We do feel that given the opportunity Eagle Waste & Recycling would have worked with the landfill's governing board to support them and work toward a single-stream recycling system.

We realize that the decision has been made and we now have to live with it. We don't believe this entire process was handled properly. Marquette residents were not able to take advantage of the lower-cost bid and a more convenient recycling program.

In our role as a community watchdog, we will be keeping a close eye on future cost increases and amendments to the original contract to try to protect taxpayers in the city of Marquette.