EDITORIAL: A Rancorous Millage Campaign Benefits No One

Please note: Editorial Board member Katherine Griswold did not participate in shaping this editorial.

A MEMBER OF a citizen group recently alleged that AAATA was involved in the theft of that group’s yard signs placed on privately-owned property next to the Blake Transit Center. In an email to AAATA CEO Michael Ford, a member of the group asked Mr. Ford to intervene and stop the thefts. Mr. Ford replied, outraged, that AAATA had nothing to do with the theft. Local media reported on the exchange as if it were news rather than an electronic exercise in poor judgement on the part of all involved. Afterwards, Mr. Ford took the opportunity at an AAATA Board meeting to accuse that same citizen group of deliberately spreading “myths” about AAATA’s proposal.

Prior to the current drive to raise taxes for transit, Mr. Ford and the AAATA Board spent millions of taxpayer dollars on marketing, staff time, meals out and travel to sell a $500 million county-wide transit proposal. The county-wide transit proposal went on to be ridiculed and roundly rejected  by the same county-wide municipal leaders whom AAATA Board members and Mr. Ford had repeatedly assured City Council, the media and the public supported the proposal.

This 2012 incident damaged the credibility of both Mr. Ford as well as AAATA’s Board of Directors. It should come as no surprise, then, that members of the public who support local transit remain skeptical. Mr. Ford should expect citizens to question his proposals and, after the 2012 incident, his judgement. For any public employee to openly attack city residents for doing so is as inappropriate as it is unprofessional.

AAATA’s May 6 millage proposal debate has devolved into name-calling. Voters need facts. The majority of Ann Arbor residents are not immersed in the minutia of either the political upheaval currently afoot in local government or the bruised feelings that resulted from the failure of the county-wide transit proposal endorsed by many of the same non-profits, politicians and individuals who have thrown their support behind the current millage proposal.

Outside auditors revealed that AAATA’s 2013 audit contained material weaknesses, significant accounting oversights or errors. Two years ago, the group’s annual audit contained material weaknesses, as well. The public must know if the cost estimates being provided in relation to the current millage proposal are accurate given the nature of the most recent audit’s material weakness. Furthermore, public companies whose audits reveal repeated material weaknesses are viewed by financial analysts as poor choices for public investment.

There are questions being posed about Mr. Ford’s organization, including questions about AAATA’s operating and management costs. To answer reasonable questions resulting from the scrutiny of outside audits with name-calling is reason for serious concern. Public entities which seek to increase their own revenue through taxation should expect public input in all its forms, including rigorous questioning by citizen-activists.

We encourage Mr. Ford and AAATA to redouble their efforts in these final weeks to help citizens educate themselves on the issues, rather than simply serve up feel-good endorsements which encourage voters to behave like so many sheep herded to the ballot box. We encourage concerned citizens to engage AAATA in a constructive debate rooted in respect for both the people and the principles of democracy involved. We encourage voters to turn out on May 6 prepared to fulfil an important civic duty not because of an endorsement, but because of a thorough understanding of the financial, environmental and economic facts.