by P.D. Lesko

John Hieftje and his political pals have a reputation of ignoring public opinion. Perhaps the most egregious example was a 2008 Council meeting at which petitions with 6,000 signatures were presented to Council to urge them to put the question of whether to spend $75 million dollars to build a new city hall to a public vote. The public’s concerns were dismissed, as were the petitions.

Then the service cuts began in earnest.

In 2010, John Hieftje and his political pals on Council voted to cut fire services despite protests from residents. In 2011, John Hieftje and his political pals on Council voted to cut fire services despite protests from residents, and public protests from the city’s former fire chief. Former Chief Dominick Lanza sent Council members a letter that made it clear further cuts were unwise and irresponsible. Lanza confessed that the city’s fire coverage was sub-standard. Despite Lanza’s letter and the results of a $54,000 report on the city’s fire services that concluded coverage and response times were compromising public safety, Hieftje and political pals voted to slash funding for safety services, demanding repeated pay concessions from firefighters. After the firefighters’ union agreed to pay concessions not once but twice, Hieftje and political pals began to push a scheme to close half of the city’s six fire stations. In summer 2012, Hieftje and his political pals voted to kill not one but two resolutions brought forward by Ward 2 Council member Jane Lumm to increase police and fire staffing levels.

At the 2012 December Council retreat, Ward 4 Council member Margie Teall and Ward 1 Council member Sabra Briere argued doggedly in favor of closing fire stations. They argued against Ward 1 Council member Sumi Kailasapahy, Ward 2 Council members Jane Lumm and Sally Hart Petersen and Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin. Teall and Briere were joined by Ward 3 Council member Christopher Taylor and John Hieftje. Fewer stations, the Borg Queen and his remaining Hive Mind Collective argued, would result in much “better service.”

It has become clear that Ann Arbor voters are getting fed up with paying some of the highest property taxes per capita in the state of Michigan in exchange for reduced services.

In January 2013, Ann Arbor City Administrator Steve Powers sent Council members a memo that included the following:

At this time, I am not proceeding with reducing the number of fire stations.  The fire success statement for the Public Safety priority area: Fire station locations, number, and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards, within City resources. The number and location of fire stations should not be decided independent of the work plan that accomplishes the success statement.

It’s another embarrassing loss for Hieftje and his shrinking Hive Mind Collective—a group of pols whose votes show they would much rather build parking garages on parkland, use General Fund money for studies on non-existent trains, fund perks and gimmes for city managers, and use public money to help their developer friends rather than fix the roads, pick up leaves, maintain the parks or keep public pools in good shape.

In April 2011, John Hieftje, accompanied by Ward 3 Council member Christopher Taylor, visited the offices of AnnArbor.com for a sit down interview. Hieftje, during the course of that interview, told the news blog, “We’ve been pretty comfortable in reducing police numbers,” he said, pointing out crime is going down and the University of Michigan now has 54 of its own officers. And we’re studying the fire side, looking very intently at it. So we’re pretty comfortable with what we’re doing.” At that time, Ann Arbor officials were floating the idea of eliminating 37 more positions in public safety over the next two years — 25 in police and 12 in fire.

Then in November 2011 long-time Hieftje pal and city labor union basher Ward 2 Council member Stephen Rapundalo was handed a crushing defeat by Independent Jane Lumm. Lumm’s attention to the bottom line, financially, and to detail, has made her hugely popular not only among her constituents but city-wide.

In August 2012, Hieftje lost three of his Hive Mind Collective when Ward 1 Council member Sandi Smith refused to run against Sumi Kailasapathy, no doubt afraid she, like Rapundalo, would be humiliated by an immensely popular opponent. Ward 5 Council member Carsten Hohnke decamped from Council to “spend more time with his family.” In Ward 2, Hieftje drone Tony Derezinski found himself battling an opponent with an MBA, as well as marketing experience. Sally Hart Petersen ran a nimble, savvy campaign, and for some unknown reason Derezinski, who’d raised over $8,500 in campaign donations according to campaign finance forms, spent only around $3,000 on his race against Petersen. Even though Petersen stumbled and committed a campaign finance violation revealed prior to the election, she beat Derezinski handily.

Suddenly, the Borg Queen Hieftje found himself surround by Council members who’d run on the issue of not only protecting safety service funding but expanding safety services to undo the deep cuts with which Hieftje, in April 2011, had bragged to the public he was “pretty comfortable.”

John Hieftje isn’t comfortable anymore. John Hieftje isn’t having fun anymore; he’s stumbling from political disaster to political disaster, a punch-drunk fighter getting pummeled, primarily due to his own arrogance. After the new Council members were seated in November, at the December 2012 City council retreat, when the topic of transportation was discussed, Hieftje pushed trains. Sally Hart Petersen told her colleagues that trains should not be included in plans related to local transit before the locally-funded AATA bus service was improved. She was joined by Jane Lumm, Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin and Sumi Kailasapahy. Hieftje didn’t get his way.

At that same City Council retreat, Hieftje, Ward 1 Council member Sabra Briere and Ward 4 Council member Margie Teall argued in favor of closing fire stations. Briere has voted against funding fire coverage her entire time on Council. She has voted repeatedly to cut fire staffing, and even voted against a 2012 resolution offered by by Jane Lumm, which would have increased fire staffing with federal and state grants. Instead, Briere voted to use General Fund money to fund more work on the non-existent Fuller Road train station, which Hieftje wants to build on fragile Huron River parkland.

In 2010 AAFD union leaders stood before Council and told members staffing levels were sub-standard. Briere voted to cut staffing nonetheless. In 2011, less than one year after Dominick Lanza took the job as Ann Arbor’s Fire Chief, he handed in his resignation. Only then, did Dominick Lanza tell the truth. Months earlier, with the same number of fire fighters that Ann Arbor has now, Lanza claimed coverage was adequate, “manageable.” Then, in a March 18, 2011 letter to Council, Lanza confessed,

Current staffing levels are below nationally recognized standards and make the Ann Arbor Fire Department a “one-fire incident department,” Lanza writes. ”I urge you to move forward cautiously, pursue regional fire protection as a way to save and be more effective. Paid on-call and volunteer are not the answer. Your jobs are difficult but I implore you, be strong, make the right decisions, do not further undermine the effectiveness of your fire department.”

In response to Lanza’s confession, Briere told AnnArbor.com concerning substandard fire safety services:  “I feel as if I’ve just been told the truth.”

In March 2012 new Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard stood before Council and said, you guessed it, “more firefighters and equipment would lead to better service.” After Hubbard spoke before Council on March 12, 2012, Briere piped up and said she “recalled the city discussed the issue of fire response a couple of years ago and she remembers being told everything was OK. We were told that two people coming from Station 1 and two people coming from Station 3 could converge on the fire and everything would be covered.”

At the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting, after Hubbard spoke, Briere asked if the information had changed or if the data Hubbard presented was just a different way of looking at the department’s staffing.

Hubbard replied, “The information hasn’t changed.”

The fact of the matter is that Ann Arbor doesn’t have enough firefighters or equipment, according to former Chief Lanza and present Chief Hubbard. Ann Arbor hasn’t had enough firefighters or equipment for years, and more people are dying in house fires as a result, according to a 2011 study done by the firefighters’ union.

Regardless, Hieftje and his remaining drones, Sabra Briere, Margie Teall and Ward 3 Council member Christopher Taylor, continued to argue that having fewer fire stations would lead to “better service.” In March 2012, Chief Hubbard came up with a plan that proposed “closing Station 3, at 2130 Jackson Avenue, Station 4, at 2415 Huron Parkway and Station 6 near Briarwood Mall. It would maintain Station 1, located on Fifth Street between Huron and Ann Streets and Station 5, located near the Northwood housing area and reopen the formerly closed Station 2, at Packard and Stadium Streets. In the proposed model, the AAFD would retain its staff of 82 firefighters and redistribute its trucks and personnel among the stations, establishing the battalion chief at Station 1,” according to a piece published in the Michigan Daily.

The Michigan Daily reported that Tony Derezinski said he was “impressed by the proposal. I think this is a very creative way of doing this. You are really pulling a rabbit out of the hat … by effecting increased coverage (with) fewer stations.” Five months later Derezinski was gone, replaced by a pro-safety services Sally Hart Petersen.

The public has reacted to the plan to close fire stations angrily in comment sections of local news blogs and at Council meetings during public commentary. In September 2012, city officials took a dog and pony show on the road to “explain the plan” to the public. They got a rude awakening. Comments on AnnArbor.com reflected the public’s nasty mood:

“It is amazing that this discussion of closing fire stations continues while the art fund grows. Boggles the mind.”

“And Nero fiddled while Rome burned………….”

“The city would have plenty of money for necessities like fire safety, policing and fixing our roads (and sidewalks) if it hadn’t squandered over $100 million on the Rog Mahal, Garage Mahal and the Huronal, or run up a $200 million deficit in the pension and retirement healthcare funds.”

“That Chief Hubbard is put in the position of suggesting closing stations and settling for substandard response times is absolutely unconscionable. Public safety is the first priority of a City government. It must precede all else — there can be no discussion about parks, art, affordable housing, monorails or anything else until public safety is adequately addressed. That the Mayor and Council abrogate their fundamental responsibility to the citizens so brazenly speaks to a failure on the part of the press and the citizenry to pay attention. Shame on them, and shame on us. This is smoke and mirrors 3 stations at 4 people equals 12, 5 stations at 3 people equal 15 so there is a reduction in the firefighters on duty of 3. Also add to that the 2 man wonder truck( no water or hose) responding instead of an engine on any given day it drops to 11. I dont work in Ann Arbor anymore because I refused to go along with the city’s desire to dangerously reduce fire fighting capabilities and risk firefighter and citizens lives. I also wonder why the city can spread “propaganda” on this matter but the firefighters have a gag order? Perhaps the city doesnt want educated oposing opinions or factual information out so the public can make an informed decision. This problem could be solved easily if the University paid their fair share of the cost instead of being shielded by the state. Dominick Lanza, Former Fire Chief AAFD”

In August 2012, Hieftje stalwart supporter Margie Teall came 18 votes from losing her seat to pro-safety services Council candidate Jack Eaton. Eaton not only supported protecting safety service funding, but called for “rebuilding” decimated safety services. At an August 2012 candidate event, Eaton said, “The proposal to close fire stations is on the immediate horizon and alarms me.  ”I think that is not the correct manner to address the problems with fire response times.” Even after he lost, Eaton continued to champion the need to rebuild the city’s safety services at public meetings and in the comment sections of various local news blogs.

Powers’ recent memo to Council members in which he quietly drops a plan he was forced to spend months defending to an irate public makes clear that the wind has changed. One Council member said, “Look for a 2013-2014 city budget that is focused on funding services and the restoration of lost services. It’s about time, don’t you think?”

by P.D. Lesko

Bonnie “remained confident” in Clyde. Ma Barker “remained confident” in her boys. Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Director Sue McCormick said Friday she “remains confident” in former Ann Arbor Police Chief Barnett Jones. Her department also sent  out a press release January 11th affirming confidence in Jones and pointing out his long background in police work. Flint, which is being run by an emergency financial manager, was paying Jones $135,000 a year as the city’s Chief of Police. The water department is paying him $138,750. McCormick, who started at the Detroit Water and Sewage Department in January 2012, hired her old Ann Arbor pal Jones in May 2012, just one month after Jones “retired” from his job in Ann Arbor—another former Ann Arbor city employee who “retired” with a fat pension and benefits, then moved on to a job paying six-figures.

“I would not ask him to step down,” McCormick (pictured, left) said. “I haven’t been, in any way, dissatisfied with his service to DWSD.” Evidently, defrauding the public doesn’t strike McCormick as problematic. Her ridiculous response should come as no surprise, of course, because she knew he was the Chief of Police in Flint when she hired him in at $138,750.

In Ann Arbor the rampant political cronyism, double-dipping and dishonesty pervade our own city government and has, until recently, gone unquestioned by politicos the local news blogs and in polite conversation.

Such behavior costs taxpayers millions of dollars as city staffers push no bid contracts, and award contracts to individuals who John Hieftje has appointed to city boards and commissions. Now, with the Barnett Jones-Sue McCormick Show Ann Arbor cronyism has gone prime time. It will only be a matter of time before the Detroit papers put together the fact that McCormick and Jones worked together in Ann Arbor and that McCormick knew full well what she was doing when she hired Jones into a full-time job as the head of her department of security and integrity (no joke). McCormick is now trying to cover her tracks. She claimed to the Detroit Free Press that Jones had informed her of his work in Flint, “although she understood it to be part time.”

Let’s see if McCormick sticks to her story when Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy starts asking questions. A member of Worthy’s department, Michael Woodyard challenged incumbent District Court Judge Timothy Connors in the 2012 November election. In the course of that primary, Connors drew Worthy’s attention for accepting campaign donations from attorneys appearing before him in court. Connors is presiding over a long-standing case against the Michigan Department of Corrections in which hundreds of female inmates alleged prison workers sexually abused and harassed them for years. In 2009, Connors approved a settlement that ordered the state to pay $100 million to the prisoners and their attorneys. With matters surrounding the settlement still being worked out, attorneys for the plaintiffs recently contributed more than $8,000 to Connors’ campaign, reports show. Worthy’s motion seeks to have Connors removed from the case, and will be decided on January 18th.

In August 2011, A2Politico posted a piece titled, “Mayor & Police Chief’s Longtime Claims That ‘Crime Is Down’ Bogus? AAPD Sources Reveal Crime Reports Not Filed & Allege Crimes Misclassified.” A2P sources within the AAPD have alleged repeatedly that John Hieftje and former AAPD Chief Barnett Jones misclassified crimes and rigged crime stats to make it appear as though serious crime in Ann Arbor has remained low despite the fact that the number of police officers and money spent on community policing has plummeted. It’s not a new trick for either politicos or top cops. Outside investigators called in to comb through police reports and data in other cities have uncovered deliberate efforts to misclassify crime reports and efforts to rig crime data.

In 2004 Atlanta’s new Police Chief, Richard Pennington, released an independent audit of his department’s police practices that shocked the nation. He criticized his department for underreporting crime. The Los Angeles Times reports, “The independent report covers the years prior to Atlanta’s 1996 Summer Olympics through Pennington’s tenure as chief, which began in 2002. It described ‘a broken police department’ that, during a period when officials here were concerned about the city’s image as a tourist destination, discarded crime records and improperly closed cases.”

In January of 2011, The New York Times reported that David N. Kelley, Chief of Police for the city of New York, announced that “three former federal prosecutors would review the department’s internal crime-reporting system.” The article goes on to report that, “Critics have long suggested that the crime data has been undermined by departmental incentives or threats that in many cases prompt those responsible for assessing, reporting and recording crimes — from patrol officers to precinct commanders — to downgrade offenses….”

In that August 2011 A2Politico piece, Chief Jones (pictured, right) began his comments in response to allegations from officers within his own department by saying, “I am not a crook.” The irony of the statement, of course, is that former President Richard Nixon said the same thing in an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors in November of 1973 as he declared his innocence in the Watergate case. As it turns out, Barnett Jones is a crook. He recently resigned from his position as the Chief of Police in Flint, Michigan when the Detroit Free Press revealed Jones was moonlighting as the head of security for the Detroit Water and Sewage Department. In essence, Jones was working two six-figure jobs in cities that are 70 miles apart. Officials in Flint said they didn’t know Jones also was working as chief of security and integrity for the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.

Now, the union representing Detroit Water and Sewerage Department security officers is calling for the resignation of security chief Barnett Jones.

Michael Mulholland is the vice president of AFSCME Local 207  which represents about 77 security guards and more than 800 other department employees. Mulholland told the Freep: “He should have been fired…When he was hired in, they changed the name to the department of security and integrity because they wanted to set a new tone. If that irony alone isn’t enough to fire him, I don’t know what is.”

In published reports, Jones said he was able to work 40 hours a week in Flint and 40 hours a week in Detroit by working into the night and on weekends. He described himself as “kind of a consultant up in Flint” to the Free Press, but his Flint contract reads that “it is the intent of the parties that employee will exercise broad powers in restructuring any or all of these (public safety) operations to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and utility of these operations for the benefit of the citizens of Flint.”

The Flint Journal editorialized on January 10, 2013:

Still, this whole situation is pretty embarrassing. It gives that same old impression that there isn’t enough oversight in Flint. That lack of oversight is what led to an emergency manager in the first place. We didn’t think it would still be happening with one in place. And the topper: Emergency Manager Kurtz’s office issued a statement that said Jones still has the option of working for Flint as a public safety consultant.

That would be a slap in the face.

Kurtz and Brown said Jones never even disclosed his other job to them. That lack of respect does not deserve to be rewarded with a consulting gig.

Let’s learn from our mistakes and move forward.

Without Jones.

Multiple Detroit-area newspapers are investigating Jones’s claims that he worked 40 hours at both jobs. The Flint Journal has asked to see Jones’s employment records, and Detroit newspaper reporters have asked to see Jones’s Detroit employment records, as well. Should it become clear that Jones was shorting either employer, at the very least he could be asked to pay back money he took, and Jones could, potentially, face criminal charges stemming from fraud. As for McCormick, she’s standing by her man. After all, it’s what happens in Ann Arbor. When then city Administrator Roger Fraser got caught by auditors misusing his city-issued credit card, John Hiefje and former Ward 3 Council member Leigh Greden led an effort that resulted in a change to city credit card use policy that, ultimately, was applied retroactively to Fraser’s misuse of public funds. In addition, even though Fraser got a $400 per month car allowance from the city, he was reimbursed $1,009.95 for fiscal year 2006 business mileage, including 846.33 in mileage for a trip to Minneapolis.

In 2006, Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford assured auditors (and City Council members on the audit committee) that “procedures had been implemented” to make sure such “double-dipping” did not occur in future.

In the city’s 2012 audit Ann Arbor City Attorney Stephen Postema was caught by auditors claiming both mileage and vehicle allowance. This clearly violates city policy. Records indicate he claimed $1,043.37 in mileage reimbursements dating from June 23, 2011, despite his vehicle allowance of $330 per month, an allowance that was recently discontinued—replaced with an almost 2.4 percent equivalent hike in pay. When McCormick worked in Ann Arbor, staffers alleged that she and another city employee who lived in Lansing car-pooled together while both collected car allowances.

Tom Crawford, meanwhile, was given a generous pay raise in 2011 by Hieftje and City Council members, the year after the auditor cited the city (again) for poor financial control of credit cards. This year, the auditor dinged Crawford’s office for paying out on questionable expense reports.

by P.D. Lesko

Michael Woodyard is either Gandalf or Saruman, it just depends on whom you ask. He is challenging Judge Timothy Connors for his seat on the 22nd Circuit Court, a seat Connors has either warmed, or filled admirably, depending on whom you ask. In Washtenaw County, local lawyers simply don’t run against judicial incumbents. Lawyers will explain that it’s because a lawyer who challenges an incumbent and loses could then end up appearing before the incumbent. The obvious fear is that the incumbent judges would hold grudges against their opponents and then make them suffer for it. Considering the fact that judges are supposed to be the adults in the room while lawyers and litigants squabble and scrabble, the prospect that judges would behave vindictively because they had to run for elective office rather than get a free ride every few years should get a little more press than it does.

In Oakland County five incumbent circuit county judges are fending off challengers this election season. It is suspected that a single litigant may be secretly targeting one or more incumbent judges, as the challengers have been the beneficiaries of a million-dollar ad blitz funded by an unknown donor or donors using out-of-state corporations to conceal their identity and motives.

Michael Woodyard (right) lives in Washtenaw County, but works for the Wayne County Prosecutor. Thus, he stands to suffer little professional fall-out as a result of his run against Judge Connors—at least in Wayne County. Here in Washtenaw County, an anonymous letter allegedly mailed to Woodyard urging him to withdraw from the race suggests that his name will be mud should Woodyard “force” local members of the Bar to pony up money to fund Connors’s campaign. Of course, the letter writer implies the local Bar Association and its members are forced to pony up to cover the campaign costs of the sitting judge. Perhaps members of the local Bar prefer to think of it as extortion, rather than blackmail.

A2Buzz.org was created in 2005, and the domain name doesn’t expire until 2014. In a nutshell, the site claims to have been “instrumental in exposing the behavior of  Timothy Connors – Washtenaw  County Circuit Court judge.” The site is outdated, and many of the links broken. Rob Packard, the reporter who allegedly had this to say about Connors in a quote from A2Buzz.org, works at WNWO in Toledo, Ohio:

“As an award winning television journalist, I am frequently required to attend court hearings.  I have a great deal of respect for judges and their position.  In the hearings I attended in this matter, I observed Judge Connors to be rude, constantly interrupting, inattentive, rolling his eyes, sighing, yelling, avoiding eye contact, staring out the window.  I was shocked. There was a clear sense of bias in Judge Connors demeanor.  I have covered federal, civil and criminal court cases for more than a decade. I have never witnessed such a mean and biased behavior in any Judge before.”

Several comments posted anonymously to AnnArbor.com in response to Woodyard’s announcement that he intended to run for the Circuit Court were similarly pointed about Connors’s demeanor in his courtroom. In both 2000 and 2006, Judge Melinda Morris pulled down thousands more votes than her colleague Judge Timothy Connors when they both ran for re-election unopposed. In 2006, when he last ran for re-election, Connors got a little over 65,000 votes out of the 135,126 ballots cast.

To be sure, Michael Woodyard will be outspent, and he will have to make do with just a fraction of the endorsers and endorsements the incumbent will have. However, over the past three years, voters in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County hasve delivered some rude surprises at the polls both to entrenched political candidates, as well as to supporters of ballot proposals that seemed sure to pass, then didn’t. Could Woodyard win? In a 1999 issue of Court Review, a piece about public confidence in our court system argues that, “For most of our nation’s history, perceptions of, and public trust and confidence in, the U.S. Supreme Court have served as the bellwether of the public’s attitudes toward the judiciary. Indeed, people’s opinions about the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to dictate the general attitude toward the judiciary.” If this is true, it’s bad news for Connors. According to a July 2012 piece in the New York Times, the U.S. Supreme Court has an approval rating of just 40 percent. The Pew Research Center’s measure of favorability concerning the U.S. Supreme Court for 2012 is the lowest in 25 years.

A2Politico: Tell us a little about yourself, your connections to Washtenaw County.

Michael Woodyard:  My family moved to Southeastern Michigan in 1976, when I was 10. I lived in Ypsilanti while I attended Eastern Michigan University, graduating in 1997. In 2002 I bought a home in Ann Arbor. I’ve lived here since, and my kids, now 10 and 8, are enrolled in the city’s public schools.

I find the question of community ties for judicial candidates fascinating. Voters who are choosing a candidate for a policy-making elective office like city council or state representative probably would want someone in office who is just like them. Having someone who has lived their whole life in town might be a good way to tell if someone is like you. But a judge doesn’t make laws or policy. A judge interprets the law as it is written, and the law is the same in Ann Arbor as it is in Ishpeming and in Detroit.

We are very fortunate that Washtenaw County, with the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University and various auto suppliers and tech companies, is a destination for people from all over the world. So it’s quite possible that you will find tremendously qualified people who haven’t lived here their whole lives. Basing one’s decision on who to support whether the candidate’s parents went to Huron High School sort of ignores the well-qualified folks who came here later in life.

The law requires that a judge live in the circuit in which he or she serves. So in that respect, my connection to Washtenaw County is important. This is my home, this is where my child was born, were my kids go to school. But insofar as a connection to the community makes it more or less likely that I’ll be a “good” judge, I don’t think that’s an apt data point.

I think a more appropriate question is: how much experience do I have in court, what sort of experience do I have in advocating for justice, will I hold everyone equally accountable before the law, no matter if they’re rich or poor, black or white. And on those points, I am proud of my record, and confident I will serve with distinction.

A2Politico:  Generally, sitting judges get free rides during elections because lawyers who work in the same county are afraid to challenge them for office. You live in Washtenaw County, but work in Wayne County. That explains why you don’t have to fear professional retaliation in Washtenaw County for challenging an incumbent judge, but what makes you think you’ll do a better job than a jurist whose been there since 1997?

Michael Woodyard:  The Circuit Court has jurisdiction over felony criminal cases, certain civil cases, divorce, adoption, child protection, child custody, juvenile delinquency, and other matters. All of these are important areas of law, but the heart of the court lies in its administration of criminal justice. And as a 10-year veteran of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, I have an expertise and depth of experience in law and the administration of justice that is not matched by any other candidate.

According to the Michigan Code of Professional Responsibility, a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. So as a “minister of justice,” I have fought for 10 years on behalf of children and families. I’ve represented the People of the State of Michigan in 20 different district courts and in front of 27 different circuit court judges. I’ve tried more than 100 cases to verdict before juries and judges. I’ve handled more than 800 arrest warrants. I have an intimate and deep familiarity with the workings of the system of justice.

My opponent has been assigned a civil docket for the past 15 years. These cases are important, with real people trying to resolve important questions. But my opponent simply doesn’t have the depth of experience that I have in criminal law, in advocating for justice under difficult, adversarial circumstances. It is that rich experience that makes me uniquely qualified to serve as judge.

A2Politico:  Who’s on Team Woodyard, helping you with your campaign?

Michael Woodyard:  My campaign is a completely grass-roots effort. The everyday staff consists of me and my girlfriend, Veena Kulkarni, a magnificent concert pianist, teacher, and gracious thinker. Ebru Uras, a friend and former United States Foreign Service officer, is contributing her expertise. Several attorneys I work with are involved. We’ve got a number of strong supporters at our church, and of course, my kids are a big help, too.

A2Politico:  Both you and Judge Connors are on Facebook, and you’re on Twitter. Is social media playing a significant role in your campaign?

Michael Woodyard:  Social media is a great way to keep supporters up to date on what’s going on, to invite folks to events, and to share information about the campaign.

In fact, we recently updated my website (woodyard4judge.com) to provide direct links to court opinions and government documents containing information about my record and my opponent’s record, so voters can see the facts, without any spin or campaign gloss. This is a terrific way to fold important campaign information and digital technology into a seamless presentation.

A2Politico:   Judge Connors was appointed by a Republican governor (Engler). While judgeships are technically non-partisan, politicos-in-the-know understand that Michigan’s bench has become politically polarized. Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

Michael Woodyard:  I’m a life-long Democrat, and my perspective on the law is formed with a background in prosecution. I believe that we all have a responsibility to work to improve society, and I also believe that people must be accountable for their conduct. I think that interpretation of statutes should be careful, and precedent must be followed. The law is the law, and my conviction is to apply it fairly and with integrity, regardless of who the lawyer is standing in front of me, regardless of the social status of the litigants.

A2Politico:  A2Politico has been getting emails from local lawyers about the fact that Judge Connors works for the University of Michigan as a Lecturer (with a .9 appointment and a pro-rata salary of $609,145.78 as of 2011) and yet he refuses to recuse himself when cases involving the University of Michigan come before him. Should a Circuit Court Judge recuse himself from hearing and ruling on cases that involve his employer, or is this a tempest in a judicial teapot?

Michael Woodyard:  Michigan Court Rule 2.003 lists a variety of situations in which a judge might disqualify himself, or in which a party may seek a judge’s disqualification. One circumstance is when the judge has “more than a de minimis economic interest in the subject matter in controversy that could be substantially impacted by the proceeding.”

I suppose one would have to argue that my opponent could get fired from his $54,000 a year teaching job at U of M if he doesn’t rule in favor of the university, and he therefore has a direct interest in the outcome of the cases. But that is nothing more than speculation, and probably not true, anyway.

What isn’t speculative, however, is that his substantial paycheck from the university – and his wife’s new appointment as a family law professor at the university’s law school – raises fair questions about the appearance of impropriety. And that is the subject of a few provisions of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.

“Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.” M.C.J. Canon 2 (2)(A)

In particular, while a judge is encouraged to teach and take part in activities that promote understanding of the law, the “judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality or judicial office, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit the judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.” M.C.J. Canon 5 (C)(1).

If a judge takes in about $54,000 from a teaching job at the U of M, and his wife also is employed by the University as a law school professor, at the same time that the judge regularly rules on controversies involving the University, those facts alone do not appear to violate any specific canons or rules of ethics. The situation may, however, raise a legitimate question about the appearance of impropriety. And that is a question that each judge will have to answer for himself.

A2Politico:  In May, you allegedly received an anonymous letter (which you posted to your Facebook page) urging you to drop out of the race. It wasn’t a threat, per se, but nonetheless it wasn’t very sporting to suggest anonymously that you have no business running for office because you don’t practice in Washtenaw County, and will cost members of the local bar money when they are be forced to contribute to Judge Connors’s re-election campaign. The letter does make a fair point that few in the political/legal communities in the county know you, professionally. Someone recently suggested to A2P that you’re either very brave or extremely foolish. Which is it? A little of both, maybe?

Michael Woodyard:  Judges are required to act on behalf of litigants and the community, not on behalf of their friends or local attorneys or the political classes. So the question is really whether the voters think my decade of experience fighting for the rights of children and families who have been victimized by crime in one of the largest and busiest and most violent jurisdictions in the United States qualifies me to fairly and justly determine controversies as judge.

I also think it’s fair to point out that “professional,” for a lawyer, has to do with written and oral advocacy, and the lawyer’s demonstrated abilities to be just. That is a different question from whether one talks to a lawyer at bar association functions, or if one thinks the lawyer is a nice guy.

That said, I’m neither brave nor foolish. I am dedicated to public service, and committed to the ideas of accountability, safety and community. Since at least 1954, Michigan law has provided for contested, non-partisan election of circuit court judges. Local media has reported that this race is the first time that an incumbent Washtenaw Circuit judge has been challenged. I think that’s a shame. I think that a judge, like any elected public servant, should be proud of their record and should place that record before the electorate every chance he gets. And if the electorate thinks another person has the qualifications needed to fulfill those specific duties, than someone else should be elected.

A2Politico:  How’s the fundraising going? Care to share how much money you’ve raised thus far for your campaign? Have you self-funded at all?

Michael Woodyard:  Our campaign is a grass-roots labor of love. I haven’t raised tons of money, I haven’t gotten donations from PACs or Super PACs. I am supported by friends, family, members of my church, and the many, many people that I meet and talk with about my record.

I predict that when financials are reported by the state Bureau of Elections later this month, you will see that my opponent has crushed me in terms of raising money from local attorneys, PACS and members of the political and social establishment.

A2Politico:  You endorsed a candidate in the August primary. A2P got a tip that this is against the Judicial Code of Ethics for Michigan Judges. You’re not a judge, of course, so it’s a moot point, and we told our tipster to take two aspirin and call us in the morning. However, one would expect a candidate for judge to know the rules about endorsing in political contests. Then again, Michigan Supreme Court candidate Bridget McCormack, just endorsed Judge Connors and he graciously accepted it via his blog. Care to comment?

Michael Woodyard:  It’s not a moot point. The particular canon prohibits the endorsement of candidates for non-judicial elected office, and applies to judges and candidates for judicial office as well. Frankly, I was very surprised when you asked me this question, because I haven’t endorsed any candidate for non-judicial office. (In fact, I had to ask you whom I had endorsed!)

It turned out that I attended a fund raiser in May, 2012, for Chuck Warpehoski (my girlfriend serves on the board of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, an organization of which Chuck is the director), and the names written down on the sign-in sheet ended up on Chuck’s website under the heading “endorsements.” When you brought this to my attention I immediately asked Chuck to take my name off the list, and he did.

A2Politico:   You write on your website: “As judge, Mike will bring his passion for service to every decision he makes. He will respect the law, not bend it to favor rich or poor. He’ll respect the office, recognizing that a judge, like everyone else, has to earn your trust every day. And Mike will respect the people who appear before him, treating everyone fairly, ensuring that justice is served.” Certainly, several comments in response to the AA.com article in which your candidacy was announced, suggest Judge Connors should be voted out of office. Are you intimating that Judge Connors bends the law to favor certain groups, or treats petitioners and attorneys unfairly?

Michael Woodyard:  I am simply sharing what I value, how I will comport myself as judge. I will respect the law, the litigants and the system of public justice. I will devote myself to improving the community through fair, evenhanded and predictable application of the law. I’ve seen the comments and talked with lots of people in the community, but I have not appeared in front of Judge Connors. I would let attorneys and others who have appeared in front of Judge Connors discuss his judicial temperament.

A2Politico:  Campaigns for judgeships are the condiciones sine quibus non for a game of insider political baseball. Can you finish up by explaining (without using Latin) why the race for this circuit court judgeship should matter a lot to the average citizen? How does a circuit judge touch the life of an average voter?

Michael Woodyard:  Circuit judges are involved in the most important issues affecting a person’s life: child custody, divorce, felony criminal cases, civil disputes, and family matters of various types. A circuit court judge has a far more direct and immediate effect on the individual appearing before the court than do all of the larger structures of government. And by assuming such a direct role with the individual, the court, by extension, plays an essential part in the community.

These are the things I’ve learned over the past decade, representing the People of the State of Michigan in court every day of the week. The circuit court can be a partner in the community, working to foster a sense of accountability, to improve and maintain safety and to strengthen the community by dispensing justice in a fair, evenhanded and predictable manner. As judge, that is what I will do.

by P.D. Lesko

It pays, literally, to live in at least one of the high rent neighborhoods in Ann Arbor. Specifically, outgoing Ward 2 Council member Tony Derezinski’s neighborhood. Between January and September 2012, within a 1 mile radium of Derezinski’s home, there were just 27 crimes reported, the majority of them forced entry burglaries. After burglaries, cars were the most common targets for thieves in Derezinski’s ‘hood—vehicle thefts and, more commonly, vehicle break-ins plagued the Council member’s tony Ward 2 neighborhood. There were no drug-related crimes, sex crimes, arsons, DUIs, or homicides reported to the Ann Arbor Police Department within 1 mile of Derezinski’s home. There were three assaults, but all of them were related to domestic violence complaints.

A2Politico.com used CrimeMapping.com to take a look at the rate of crimes committed (and reported), the type of crimes and frequency of crime within a 1 mile radius of the homes of all of the city’s elected officials, including John Hieftje and all of the 10 City Council members. According to the company’s web site, “CrimeMapping.com has been developed by The Omega Group to help law enforcement agencies throughout North America provide the public with valuable information about recent crime activity in their neighborhood. Our goal is to assist police departments in reducing crime through a better-informed citizenry. Creating more self-reliance among community members is a great benefit to community oriented policing efforts everywhere and has been proven effective in combating crime. CrimeMapping.com utilizes ESRI’s advanced mapping engine, which helps us provide a high level of functionality as well as flexibility to the agencies we serve. Crime data is extracted on a regular basis from each department’s records system so that the information being viewed through a Web browser is the most current available. This data is always verified for accuracy and all address information is generalized by block in order to help ensure privacy is protected.”

Type in an address, select a radius ranging from 500 feet to 2 miles, and the site provides data so that users can see the number, location and type of crime reported during the dates specified.

Like Derezinski, within a 1 mile radius of Ward 2 Council member Jane Lumm’s home, there were a comparatively small number of crimes reported between January and September 2012, 44 in total, or about five reports filed per month. There were seven forced-entry burglaries, 10 assaults, 10 vehicles break-ins, and one drug-related crime (possession of marijuana).

In other high-priced neighborhoods, such as on Baldwin Avenue near Burns Park, where John Hieftje lives, crime is much more frequent and violent. Between January and September 2012, there were 294 crimes reported by residents who lives within a 1 mile radius of Hieftje’s home. There were 12 drug-related crimes, all of which were possession of marijuana. There were 67 burglaries, the majority of which saw thieves forcing their way into homes, as opposed to residents leaving open doors and/or windows, and 52 assaults. While in Lumm’s neighborhood, the majority of assaults were classified as intimidation, within a 1 mile radius of Hieftje’s home, the assaults were more serious, including aggravated/felony assaults, not related to domestic violence, as was the case in Derezinski’s neighborhood. There were four sex crimes, all involving forcible contact and loads (50 reports filed) of larceny/theft. In Lumm’s neighborhood, there was one instance of vandalism involving private property reported in nine months. In Hieftje’s Burns Park neighborhood, there were 61 instances of vandalism reported during the same time frame, or one instance of vandalism every four days, or so. There were no homicides or instance of disturbing the peace. There were, however, two fires classified and reported as arson.

Ward 4 Council member Margie Teall lives in Burns Park, as well, just off of Packard, in what University of Michigan faculty refer to as the “untenured” side of the neighborhood. In Lower Burns Park, the houses are smaller, closer together, less pricey than homes on the “tenured” side of Packard, near Burns Park Elementary School. In this part of Burns Park, within a 1 mile radius of Teall’s home, there were 228 crimes reported in the 9 month period in question including 30 assaults, 41 thefts, 54 acts of vandalism, 56 burglaries, .

Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin lives on the Old West Side, just off of Main Street, a few blocks from Downtown Home and Garden. Between January and September 2012 within a 1 mile radius of Anglin’s home there were 392 crimes reported, or more than 14 times the number of crimes reported in Tony Derezinski’s Ward 2 neighborhood. In Derezinski’s neighborhood, there was a crime reported to the Ann Arbor Police once every 10 days between January and September 2012; in Anglin’s neighborhood during the same period, there were 1-2 crimes reported daily. While there were fewer burglaries (63) reported in Anglin’s neighborhood than in Hieftje’s neighborhood (67), assault is a more prevalent, even while the types of assaults are not a serious as those committed in Hieftje’s Burns Park area. In Anglin’s neck of the woods, the majority of the 101 assaults reported over the 9 month period were simple assaults, including domestic violence. There were just three more drug-related crimes reported in Anglin’s neighborhood (15) as in Hieftje’s (12). However, while Hieftje’s Burns Park neighbors got nabbed for smoking and possessing pot, in Anglin’s neighborhood the police nabbed suspects in possession of crack, synthetic narcotics and dangerous drugs in addition to marijuana use and possession. Finally, in Anglin’s Old West Side neighborhood, there were 10 sex crimes reported.

So how does the AAPD use crime data to determine where patrols are most frequent? Chief John Seto, when asked, stressed that policing is primarily reactive, in other words, in response to calls reporting crimes, or requesting help.

“We divide the city into four sectors,” explained Seto.

These sectors correspond, roughly to north, south, east and west. It doesn’t mean that a patrol car cruising one sector won’t respond to a call for assistance in another sector. In fact, in cars with a single officer, in certain circumstances, it’s necessary for the officer to wait for back-up. As A2Politico revealed in 2010, “On any given morning, there are between 6-10 police officers responding to calls from the people who live in Ann Arbor. On the afternoon shift, there are between 6-10 police officers on patrol. On the midnight shift, when most serious crime happens, in Ann Arbor there are 10-12 police officers on patrol.”

While John Hieftje’s mantra is “crime is down,” sources in the AAPD have repeatedly alleged that thousands of crime reports have not been filed and that of those reports that have been filed, crimes are being misclassified to appear. Sources within the AAPD revealed:

“There are not enough officers to file reports the same way that officers who worked in the AAPD five years ago filed reports,” another source within the AAPD, who spoke to A2Politico on condition of anonymity explained. “The next call is waiting.”

There are other ways that the multiple sources within the department allege Ann Arbor’s crime statistics are being manipulated so that it appears crime has dropped even as the number of officers has been steadily reduced.

“Say a call comes in to 911. The Ann Arbor dispatch takes the call, writes it up—classifies it—and dispatches officers. When county dispatchers get involved they routinely down-classify the crimes reported in the calls. A & B (assault and battery) becomes disorderly conduct. Open calls get closed out then reclassified.”

Those are serious allegations but not outlandish.

In 2004 Atlanta’s new Police Chief, Richard Pennington, released an independent audit of his department’s police practices that shocked the nation. He criticized his department for underreporting crime. The Los Angeles Times reports, “The independent report covers the years prior to Atlanta’s 1996 Summer Olympics through Pennington’s tenure as chief, which began in 2002. It described ‘a broken police department’ that, during a period when officials here were concerned about the city’s image as a tourist destination, discarded crime records and improperly closed cases.”

In January of this year, The New York Times reported that David N. Kelley, Chief of Police for the city of New York, announced that “three former federal prosecutors would review the department’s internal crime-reporting system.” The article goes on to report that, “Critics have long suggested that the crime data has been undermined by departmental incentives or threats that in many cases prompt those responsible for assessing, reporting and recording crimes — from patrol officers to precinct commanders — to downgrade offenses….”

Ann Arbor’s internal crime-reporting system has never been reviewed or audited by an independent agency or group.

“It needs to be audited,” says a source within the AAPD. “It’s the only way the public will ever get the truth about crime in our city.”

In the meantime, CrimeMapping.com remains a resource for those interested in learning more about reported crimes (the rate of solved crimes and/or closed reports is another kettle of stinking fish, according to AAPD officers in the know).

The bright spot in all of this is that Ann Arbor’s new Police Chief, John Seto, is a big believer in pro-active policing; in other words, he believes a robust police presence deters crime. With new members of City Council preparing to take office—candidates who told voters that they favor rebuilding our decimated safety services—John Seto will, perhaps, find allies willing to move the AAPD back in the direction of pro-active policing. As for an audit of the city’s crime reports and crime-reporting system, one Council member chuckled at the suggestion.

“If we pushed for an audit like that John (Hieftje) would have a stroke.” The Council member grinned broadly. “It’s a great idea.”

by Ernesto Van Dersar

John Wiley & Sons, one of the world’s largest textbook publishers, is continuing its efforts to crack down on BitTorrent piracy. The company has now named several people who allegedly shared Wiley titles online, and is demanding a jury trial against them. If these actually go ahead it will be the first time that BitTorrent-related evidence is tested in a US court.

Last fall, John Wiley and Sons became the first book publisher to go after BitTorrent users in the US.

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company followed mostly in the footsteps of several movie studios, who together have sued more than 250,000 people in the U.S. since early 2010. And the publisher didn’t stop at just one.

In recent months Wiley has filed more than a dozen mass BitTorrent lawsuits involving a few hundred John Doe defendants in total. The Does are all accused of sharing digital copies of titles including WordPress for Dummies, Hacking for Dummies and Day Trading for Dummies.

Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said previously that one of the main goals of the legal campaign is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers and offer them the opportunity to solve the matter through a settlement.

“Our intention is to stop the infringement and let individuals know that they are violating the law and depriving the creators of the works of rightful compensation. Our preference is to educate, settle, and prevent further infringement,” Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said.

However, this strategy doesn’t always work. While the courts and Internet providers have been cooperative in assisting Wiley to obtain the personal details of the alleged book pirates, a new filing suggest that some defendants are not taking the publisher’s settlement offer.

In one of Wiley’s cases four defendants have now been named in an amended complaint.

New York residents Jeff Ng, Ralph Mohr, Robert Carpenter and Xiaoshu Chen are no longer anonymous Does. Wiley is proceeding to call for a full jury trial against the quartet in which they will face accusations of copyright infringement and up to $150,000 in penalties for each offense.

Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan declined to comment on the recent developments in these specific cases. “We are proceeding with these cases as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program,” was the comment we got instead.

If one or more of the three cases indeed proceeds to a full trial it will be the first time that actual evidence against BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn’t identify a person but merely a connection.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques “as factually erroneous,” “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

If the evidence is indeed tested in court, it should be a case to watch for sure.

That said, there’s also the chance that the lawyers are using the threat of a full trial by jury as a pressure tool to convince the defendants to settle. After all, the RIAA’s litigation campaign against individual file-sharers has shown that even when a jury awards hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, lengthy trials cost more than they bring in.

First posted to Torrent Freak.