Despite e-mail gaffe, Leigh Greden was a rigorous advocate and doer on City Council
Forgive me if I’m not doing cartwheels over the prospect of Leigh Greden, Ann Arbor City Council’s Lord Of The Laptop, leaving that governing body in November. Greden, you recall, lost by six votes in this month’s Democratic primary, although a recount is set for this week. A key issue was e-mails printed in local media that revealed disrespectful or off-point banter by council members during meetings.
Greden was the ringleader, often the cheerleader of conversations that at times made light of presentations taking place before council. Worse, some of the e-mails that discussed possible votes arguably violated the state Open Meetings Act. Yet in the rush to judgment over the propriety and significance of these exchanges, I worry that we’re losing sight of other important aspects in governing a city - areas where Greden arguably excelled for a long time. Since first being elected in 2003, Greden has been a doer - one of those council members who consistently focuses on the big picture, which often includes a harsh dose of financial reality. Obviously, some of those e-mails are foolish and inexcusable. Greden has apologized for the notes, an assertion that rated a banner headline in the now-departed Ann Arbor News, although I think he could have explained himself far better in that and subsequent stories. But I am sure he learned a valuable lesson in communicating during the digital age. Those cigar-filled rooms, the romantic stuff of old-school politics, are now playing out on your laptop. You had better mind your manners and understand how much is retrievable under the law these days. I know some of Ann Arbor is shocked - shocked that anybody could say something in an ostensibly private forum that does not match their public statements. But I also suspect a good portion of the taxpaying public respects rigorous work by someone who serves on a board with wide financial oversight. Here are other questions to ask about Greden’s performance on city council: Has he come prepared to meetings? If you asked city officials, would they tell you he does his homework? Does he force voters to think about difficult questions, such as imposing a city income tax? Does he serve on substantive committees that deal with long-term issues, such as the budget and labor committee? Does he relate to a broad spectrum of the city, caring for students along with established residents? Is his primary focus the budget and Ann Arbor’s long-term health, as opposed to micro-concerns or symbolic resolutions? Is he willing to be quoted publicly regarding his stance on issues, and are those stances consistent? From this vantage point, the answer to those questions is yes. Greden, a lawyer, reminds me of Mike Reid, a former Republican on council who consistently asked the knotty questions rooted in managing city services. People like that figuratively grab us taxpayers by the shirt and force us to look at the tradeoffs involved in approving any measure. We can’t have it all, they say. It’s fun to recall the crazy days in the early 1970s, where members of the Human Rights Party served on council, but in reality some meetings descended into a political circus of contentious remarks by single-issue zealots. It was great theater with little substance. Ann Arbor is full of accomplished professionals, pragmatists versed in the law, management, finance, business and the environment. Expertise abounds, and we must continue to tap into that for our decision makers. But we also have mastered the subjective arts of NIMBYism and political correctness. Those voices speak even louder these days, where blog comments can blur a quiet consensus on certain issues. As we evaluate those willing to make the sacrifice of time and even money to serve on council, I hope we maintain our perspective on these two extremes while asking who can best manage the broad vision of Ann Arbor’s welfare and financial future.
Comments
Owen23
Tue, Aug 25, 2009 : 5:46 p.m.
Rusty: Are you a lawyer? Probably not, because if you were you'd give the opinion that any lawyer would, AND the opinion that the city's lawyer probably did: the emails broke no laws. End of story. If they did, then every whisper in the ear with the hand over the microphone between council members would be a breach of OMA. This was, and always has been from the beginning, just a blunt object used to bludgeon council members by people who already had an agenda.
Dan Pritts
Tue, Aug 25, 2009 : 11:09 a.m.
regarding the ann arbor animal ordinance, it was debated for 7 hours because it directly affected the people of Ann Arbor. The ordinance was broad, overreaching, and fatally flawed, and deserved to be shot down. There were passionate animal rights supporters who kept the meeting going in favor of passing the ordinance, but eventually it went down to well-deserved defeat. It did not just refer to birds; pretty much all domestic animals were covered, and in some broad and intrusive ways. It wasn't a good ordinance, but it was brought forward by a council member who was at least well meaning. Overall I agree, though, that it was a waste of time. Regarding whether the city should debate the palestinian question... I didn't watch the entire video you posted because it didn't get to its point very quickly, but it appears to be referring to federal aid to Israel. I for one am not interested in having our city government waste even more time on an issue that is controlled at the federal level.
Owen23
Mon, Aug 24, 2009 : 4:44 p.m.
Funny. There has been, and continues to be ZERO indication that the emails broke any laws. Grasping at straws there.
Jesse Bernstein
Mon, Aug 24, 2009 : 9:26 a.m.
I wonder what the 89% of the eligible voters who DID NOT vote think about all this? There are lots of stories here, but until more people exercise their right to vote, no candidate should believe he/she has a true mandate from the people. How can anyone really interpret what an election means when only 11% vote?
Diagenes
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:19 p.m.
Leigh Greden is an example of what is wrong with our city elections. Due to a change from April elections to November competetive races across the city are rare. Small turn out in primaries result in elections where a minority of people determine the winners. Ann Arbor's one party rule, and more than ample compensation for serving on Council has created a ruling class that feels entitled to run the city. I hope Greden's defeat means the citiezens are taking back their government.
a2arrow
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 6:51 p.m.
Mr. Larcom appears to be one of the few writers with any perspective on this whole issue. (It is very easy to arm-chair quarterback the running of the City and I admire those who take the time to be public servants--even Mr. Greden who from these posts evidently was dedicated to the job.) Mr. Larcom should have written today's editorial in annarbor.com which seems to suggest great legal peril to the parking structure because of the lawsuit. It was not clear at all to me that there was any basis for the continued reference to Open Meeting violations when this story broke and this parking lot lawsuit was filed. I became more interested today when I read in a comment in another thread on annarbor.com that the parking garage lawsuit alleging an OM violation is required to be filed within 30 days of the February meeting. I think annarbor.com should have reported this in their editorial for the public to know this. So. We have a OM lawsuit claiming a violation of the OM and the plaintiff does not even follow the basic law he wants to be applied to the City. I looked up the law on-line, it seems to have a 30-day time period to contest a bond related matter. There is also a 60-day time period for other things. In either case, we are way past those time periods. I ask my neighbor/lawyer, he says there is a short time period so that a City can go ahead with plans and not get into a lawsuit 6 months or a year after someone decides to get around to complaining about it. Government couldn't function if any decision could be challenged at the whim of a resident. Makes sense to me. I didn't really care about the parking structure one way or the other. But I am bothered by the tendency to simply file a lawsuit when someone doesn't like a council decision. The Council made a decision here. I asked my neighbor/lawyer again, can someone prevent a building from being built by merely alleging that there will be noise and construction before there is any construction. He says of course not, otherwise no construction could ever take place in the City. Makes sense to me. What bothers me about the lack of perspective is further demonstrated in the thread about annarbor.com's editorial. Someone brings up the time limitation. What is the comment about that fact? Not a discussion about the statute or applicable time limit, but a comment that the writer shouldn't have been elected judge because she pointed out the fact that a 30-day time limit is in the statute and that time-limit evidently is not liked by the commentator. Either there is this time-limit or there isn't. I would actually want a judge to actually read the statute. This is so basic. Why would that disqualify the writer from being a judge? I may be missing something here (I'm willing to be educated), but what is the point of trying to stop this project when the basic time period was not complied with? As a member of the public, it is this type of lawsuit that seems wrong to me. This seems to be a great disservice to the community and a waste of court and city time--taxpayer paid time. Mr. Larcom should run for City Council. Hopefully, he can help elevate the level of discussion about these matters.
josber
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 6:45 p.m.
Leigh Greden wrote emails that were humiliating to the people he was trying to court. He may have been good at his job, but there are important lines you don't cross if you want to keep your job, and making fun of the people who elected you is one of them. The Dem establishment really wanted him, or did they just not want Kunselman, who is more irascible, and not a ringleader. Greden supposedly was really good with unions, and the local party seems worried about a possible strike due to the economy and are hoping to buy their way out of the with the city income tax.
Tim R. Land
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 2:44 p.m.
First off - Thank you AnnArbor.com for such a fine and reasonable article. In regards to a fellow commenter: All this mumbo-jumbo about comparing one of the most pro-Ann Arbor people I have ever met, to one of the most heinous dictators our World has ever known is absolutely absurd and disgusting! Ms. Lesko, you should be ashamed of yourself for making such an accusation! By using Mussolini as your example demonstrates your inept understanding of history, government, politics, and social gaffes. Sure the e-mail faux pas could have been avoided, but seriously, if you went almost any in-box in America you would find that kind of shenanigans going on (especially, if you had to sit there and try to look like you are trying to take a singing crazy lady seriously you would have been appalled at my in-box if I had to endure that business!). The ENTIRE Council learned their lesson on this one. We have entered a new era of learning how to deal with communications and working towards a more transparent government - if you would have been paying attention the last council meeting you would have known that Ms. Lesko. Lastly - Thank-you Mr. Greden for your hard work. I hope that this bump in the road does not permit you to waiver in continuing to be a first class public servant to the City of Ann Arbor.
Owen23
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 2:09 p.m.
This column is spot on. Every time I've met or spoke with Mr. Greden, I've always come away with the impression that this was someone who ate, slept and breathed Ann Arbor. He might officially make his living as a lawyer, but I've always felt that the truth was he spent most of his waking moments thinking about and working on issues related to the city. Some people saw this as "power mongering" or careerism. I saw it as the mark of a true, born public servant. As some of the commenters have said, let's hope this does not signal a return to the incoherence and circus-like governance of yesteryear. For all his foibles and faults, Mr. Greden represents to me true quality governance... as opposed to NIMBY-ism, special interests and wing-nuttery of all political stripes and insanity. Perhaps Mr. Greden's falling out is a result of the fact that he never bowed to, or even gave winking nods to the crazies and the NIMBY armies. Even the mayor occasionally finds himself giving lip service to the crazies and the shouters. Mr. Greden, on the other hand, simply forged ahead and tried to do good things for this city by trying to shout sound governance over the general din. Here's hoping he can continue to do the same in some capacity for years to come.
DebbieDora2
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.
If it was once excusable twice, three times consistently? well no our community has fallen apart there is no longer community. This people are paid and elected to be an official capacity. What we have is higher taxes people loosing there homes, jobs. Now a bunch of unprofessional nit wits sitting passing notes, whispering, gossiping humor. I find it amazing since they jump from one thing to another never completed projected one. They obviously cannot multitask. Yet can raise taxes and build more condos and give more property to screw town U of M. What let the people leave.We are the people that voted you out it is 0 tolerance and if you had to be the first OH WELL! I am sure there will be more to follow.It is unacceptable sir
Joan Lowenstein
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 11:48 a.m.
The city council has never discussed -- either in public or in private -- a boycott of Israel because it would be discriminatory and illegal and is only supported by a handful of extremists. As Geoff points out, Leigh Greden has served the public by focusing on real city issues.
corazon
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 11:39 a.m.
When an elected official such as Mr. Greden has lost the faith of the people he represents, it's time for his departure. The voters loss of faith in Mr. Greden, somewhat attributable to illegal emails, to his support of a widely unpopular proposed tax, and a general sense that another person could do a better job representing the constituents reaffirms our electooral process. The assertion that Mr. Greden interacted well with other City officials might also have been a campaign issue, but voters decided to elect a very competent replacement.
Blaine Coleman
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 10:52 a.m.
Yes, if Council can hold 7-hour public hearings on bird rights, it can certainly hold a public hearing on Palestinian human rights.. Don't believe me? Look at the "Ann Arbor News", November 7, 2003, at:. http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031103/009628.html. "As the council voted to postpone a vote 9-2, Democrat Council Member Heidi Herrell broke down and cried. It was Herrell who sponsored the 38-page revision of the city's animal laws and spent the last three years working on it with the 13-member Task Force On Animal Related Programs, Policies, Procedures and Ordinances.... "...The meeting lasted more than seven hours until 3 a.m., with about an hour of public speakers followed by another hour of council debate.".. Can I emphasize that, unlike birds, Palestinians are human beings, who also live and vote in Ann Arbor, Michigan?. Do you really want Palestine human rights resolutions to be decided in secret, via e-mail, at City Council?
Mike D.
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 9:57 a.m.
We need basic city services, roads that don't swallow cars whole, and sensible urban planning. Call me a grumpy old man or--even worse--a Republican, but I hope city council spends as little time as possible with resolutions that will have no material impact on anything. Examples are anything having to do with migratory birds or Israel. The council has been pretty good lately at humoring the anti-Israeli-migrating-birds folks but getting actual work done. Leigh clearly has been instrumental in this sort of pragmatism, and I hope we don't degenerate back into the stoned idealism of Ann Arbor Council's past.
Blaine Coleman
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 9:03 a.m.
Yes, when you decide City Council issues in secret, that violates the Open Meetings Act.. That is also true when the issue is a City Council boycott against Israel.. See this video, from the last City Council meeting--. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JuJiTe116U. When do we get to see the City Council e-mails where it was decided that resolutions for sanctions against Israel could NEVER be allowed a public hearing, a public City Council debate, or a public vote?. Remember, thousands of people have petitioned Ann Arbor City Council for sanctions against Israel, since January 9, 1984:. http://dearbornboycottsisrael.blogspot.com/2009/07/cutting-off-aid-to-israel-more-than.html
Alan Goldsmith
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:40 a.m.
"Obviously, some of those e-mails are foolish and inexcusable. Greden has apologized for the notes, an assertion that rated a banner headline in the now-departed Ann Arbor News, although I think he could have explained himself far better in that and subsequent stories." At first Mr. Greden claimed he did nothing wrong. Then, he sent out an email to a handful of 3rd Ward voters, with a 'if I offended anyone....I'm sorry, but I did nothing wrong". It was more than just junior high humor. Mr. Greden possibly violated state law by working on Chris Easthope's campaign for judge while using city own equipment, not to mention DURING a city council meeting. According to the A2 Chronicle, council had an 'understanding' with the A2 News that emails between council reps would be 'off limits'. That wasn't the case with the last series of Judy McGovern article, but the News was a sleeping watchdog when it came to many of the issues with council. It's a sad turn of events. Despite his arrogance and despite me being in disagreement with some of the positions Mr. Greden took, he was a talented and hard working member of Council and the city could use lots more citizens like Greden who do make sacrifices in their public service. Hopefully he's learned from the experience. But Ann Arbor deserves open and honest government and the defeat of Mr. Greden will be a wake up call in that effort.
Mike D.
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:22 a.m.
In response to Patrcia: Mussolini and Nixon committed heinous crimes. Leigh Greden sent snarky emails. Some people in this town need to get out a little more and gain some perspective.
Patricia Lesko
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:17 a.m.
Mussolini made the trains run on time. Partisans (NIMBYs?) got rid of him, and he ended up hanging upside down in Piazzale Loreto in Milan. Your piece tries to argue that, in politics, the means can justify the ends. Using your same logic, you could write that Richard Nixon's foreign policy was largely successful, and wonder why the Watergate "gaffe" (sigh) brought down such an able public servant. Political correctness and NIMBYism didn't force Leigh Greden from office, and neither did a simple "gaffe." To attribute the outcome of a political upset of a three-term incumbent to such a facile reason, asks us to believe that the voters who chose not to put him back in office are both simple-minded and incredibly shallowabsurdly unforgiving of minor "social errors." The Faux Pas Police soundly defeat three-term incumbent in response to "off-point banter?" Hardly. Well, we can always look on the bright side. Maybe Mayor Hieftje will, eventually, pardon Leigh Greden for any "social gaffes" the latter may have committed while serving in office.
Mike D.
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:09 a.m.
This editorial provides a perspective that has been sorely lacking. People are acting like Leigh embezzled funds and screwed all the interns. In reality, he sent sarcastic emails and he got pilloried for it. I send lots of sarcastic emails at work; this doesn't change the fact that I am good at my job and get things done, so I can't get too worked up about what I saw in the council's emails. The "Open Meetings" issue is a non-issue if you look at the substance of what was being discussed--it's pretty clear it was about saving time and being efficient, not hiding important issues from the voters. If you look at all the work Leigh has actually done, all the difficult issues he's helped the council through, all the common sense, this "scandal" seems ridiculous. Anyhow, I hope Leigh learned his lesson about appearances and we the people can focus on the big picture a little more.
Ann Arbor Resident
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 8:06 a.m.
This is a well written article and a strong advocacy for Mr. Greden. I am sure that we have not seen the last of him in AA politics. Yes, it is good to see a council member prepared for meetings, engaged with the public, etc. However, the public is not going to elect him/her if they do not agree with their policy decisions, politics and demeanor. I do not believe the comparasion to Mr. Mike Reid is valid. Mr. Reid was the only fiscally responsible member of the council. I doubt he would have supported the underground parking garage. I also believe he would have been able to make a decision on the Argo Pond Issue, something our mayor and current council members are politically afraid to to.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 7:13 a.m.
"Greden has been a doer".... I would contend that what we need from City council is less "doing" and more gridlock.
YpsiLivin
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 7 a.m.
I think Greden's "untimely departure" from the City Council has less to do with email exchanges - after all, several other Council members participated and are still (unfortunately) seated - and more to do with his open support of a city income tax. I agree, however, that if the voters in Ann Arbor elected more Mike Reids to the Council, the city would only improve. Time after time, however, they put people in office who are more concerned with controlling feral cats and defending their own little pet projects than they are with controlling (or even understanding) the city budget.
James Leonard
Sun, Aug 23, 2009 : 6:33 a.m.
Dear Geoff, Nice piece - well written and well reasoned. Any chance we could see more of your writing for AA.com? Jim Leonard