About Dearborn Proposal 1, which would create a "wards system" for our City Council
Why you should VOTE NO on Proposal 1
Written by Gary Woronchak, former state representative, county commission chairman, and Dearborn newspaper editor.
Most of the 276 cities in Michigan do not elect city council members by district. Council districts, sometimes called wards, are the exception, not the norm.
Like most cities, Dearborn has always elected its city council members at large, meaning all of us elect all seven council members, and all seven council members serve all of us, the entire city.
There is a proposal on the November 4 ballot that would change the composition of the Dearborn City Council and how we elect members. If Proposal 1 is approved, the city would be divided into seven districts and our council would grow to nine members, seven of whom would be elected in districts, with two still elected citywide.
I believe that the group behind this proposal, which, curiously, has a large amount of support from groups based outside of Dearborn, is hoping to take advantage of an election that traditionally has low voter turnout to deliver enough votes to make a drastic change in our city government that most won’t even know is happening.
I am strongly opposed to this proposal, and will explain my reasons. But, I am also committed to providing details that will help voters make an informed decision.
WARDS DIVIDE DEARBORN: ARE WE ONE DEARBORN, OR NOT?
Dearborn has always prided itself on being a unified community. The concept of “One Dearborn” has been promoted for years to combat divisions, in particular the division artificially drawn by the Southfield Freeway and the mostly non-residential center of town, splitting us geographically into east and west.
This proposal brings a serious risk of increasing divisions in Dearborn, pitting neighborhoods against neighborhoods, rather than having all council members weighing all issues against the needs and good of the entire city.
It is a serious departure from us being One Dearborn, unified across cultural and geographic differences. Ironically, it could create a problem that advocates now claim exists – council members elected in individual districts could, indeed, care more about their own areas than the city at large.
It also could make it easier for the administration to use those divisions to the detriment of the council’s most important role – being a check and balance on the administration.
In fact, the entire movement to create a wards system in Dearborn is based on division. It relies on inflaming people’s dissatisfaction with conditions in their area, and selling false promises that having council districts will somehow make those problems go away. It is based on convincing people of their dissatisfaction, blaming it on a “lack of representation,” and selling them on city council wards as a cure-all.
With council districts, we could potentially go from One Dearborn to Divided Dearborn.
WARDS ACTUALLY REDUCE REPRESENTATION
Proponents of this proposal are trying to convince voters that they will have more and better representation on the city council with a wards system.
Simple math disproves that claim.
Under the current system, you vote for seven council members. All seven want your vote and thus, care about your issues. All seven serve you, and the entire city.
With council districts, you would vote for just three of the members of a nine-member city council, including your district council member and two at large, who would represent the whole city. Only three would want your vote, care about your issues, and serve you. The other six would not care about your vote, so there is no motivation for them to care about you, your issues or your neighborhood.
Let’s do the math. Seven is more than three. For representation, seven out of seven is better than three out of nine.
And, for anyone who believes that having their own “neighborhood” council member would justify having six council members not answering to you, consider this:
Council districts would each have around 15,200 residents. Which is about 3,000 more people than in the City of Melvindale. It’s not your neighborhood, it’s just a political subdivision that will be part of the division that will result from a wards system.
FAULTY PREMISE: WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS LIVE AFFECT DECISIONS
At the heart of the matter is representation. The premise behind council wards suggests that council members elected at large favor certain areas of the city, mostly where they reside, and are somehow unable to equitably represent all residents.
I believe this whole proposal is based on a faulty premise.
A majority of council members currently reside west of the Southfield Freeway, that artificial dividing line between east and west. The faulty premise is that the west end, as a result, gets more attention. Unfortunately, and to the benefit of the pro-wards group, it’s easy to sell this theory based on where council members live, because it is presented without context.
Using a council member’s current home address to imply that they cannot care about or relate to the entire city is flawed. Where a council member happens to reside fails to take into account other factors that qualify them to know and respect the needs of neighborhoods other than their own.
Dearborn is a small enough city that most elected officials have personal connections and experiences all over town.
Councilman Bob Abraham lives in the west end, but he grew up near Warren and Schaefer, graduated from Fordson High School and has for years been an officer in the Fordson Varsity Alumni Club.
Council President Mike Sareini lives in the west end but was born in the south end, went to Salina School, lived on Oakman, Firestone, Hartwell and Anthony streets and graduated from Fordson. His family owned a popular restaurant in the south end.
Councilman Mustapha Hammoud grew up on Korte in the Michigan-Greenfield area, then on Lanson behind the old city hall. He now he lives in the west end.
Is it possible that one’s current address would wipe out all that experience and affection for other areas in Dearborn in which they had previously lived? I don’t for a moment think any of them lack affection for any part of Dearborn. I think the depth of their experiences makes them better council members for the whole city.
It has been like this through the years. Look at some former council members. Tom Tafelski lives in the west end, but is a proud Fordson guy. Susan Dabaja grew up in the south end, and I’m sure she didn’t forget her roots when she was on the council and living at the TPC. Mark Shooshanian is a west-ender, raised in the Edsel Ford area, but spent his career as a coach and athletic director at Fordson High School, where his mom at was a principal.
Public officials having deep roots throughout different parts of town is one reason our current City Council structure has worked for as long as the city has existed.
SUPPORTERS TARGET LOW VOTER TURNOUT, BACKED BY OUTSIDE GROUPS
I’m troubled that the group that put this proposal on the ballot is trying to manipulate the outcome by stirring anger and emotion and taking advantage of a low-turnout election to slide through a dramatically different form of city government when most voters won’t even be aware of it, or have their voice heard.
The pro-wards group has frequently claimed they are advocating for “fair and equal representation.” But the hypocrisy in this claim is in the fact that they pushed frantically, gathering petition signatures in a condensed period of time, to rush this issue onto the ballot this year – when they know the voter turnout will be around 30 percent.
If their intentions were pure, and truly about fairness and representation, they could have easily taken more time, planned things out better (the details of the proposal are complicated and, in some areas, messy and impractical), and organized to put this on the ballot next year. They know voter turnout in next year’s state election will be more representative of a majority of the Dearborn electorate, when participation will be more in the 55 percent range. There would still be plenty of time to have their plan implemented before the 2029 city election.
Political operatives know that it’s easier for advocacy groups to “slip one by” the broader electorate when fewer voters are expected to come to the polls.
I am concerned, too, about the growing list of organizations that are based outside of Dearborn that have gotten behind this effort. Why is there so much interest in our city’s business from outside groups?
Among those endorsing the proposal is The Peoples Coalition of Michigan, based in Ann Arbor. Also, the Voter Collective for Co-Liberation of Southeast Michigan. AMEEN Action (American Muslim Engagement & Empowerment Network) in Rochester Hills has endorsed the proposal. So has the Progressive Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party. And, the proposal has been lauded by Detroit Action – an advocacy group that, by the way, actually employs the lead organizer of the pro-wards group as a community organizer.
These social justice and religion advocacy groups do some important work. But I don’t believe organizations from outside of Dearborn, and whatever funding and influence they may bring to the pro-wards effort, should push council districts on Dearborn as some sort of social-political experiment.
A decision like this should be made by as large of group of Dearborn voters as possible, and based on education and information, not by influencers outside of Dearborn trying to change our city government.
WHAT WILL IT COST TAXPAYERS?
A redistricting commission would be established to draw boundaries for the seven council districts. The districts will have to be redrawn after every U.S. Census, to reflect population shifts. This, by the way, means that boundaries for council districts would be drawn for the 2029 city election, and then the maps would have to be redrawn for the very next election in 2033.
This is not a free-of-cost process. Likely, outside consultants, experts in census tracts, and possibly legal counsel would need to be hired. The proposal requires taxpayers to pay for it, but there is no actual estimate of what that cost will be.
ADDING POLITICS TO CHOOSING COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Currently, the president of the City Council is chosen by voters. The person who gets the most votes in the election becomes council president. The second-highest vote-getter becomes council president pro tem.
This would change in a system with council districts, since there won’t be an even playing field for determining most votes.
The proposal would, instead, have the City Council elect its own president and president pro tem, which is something Dearborn did away with nearly 50 years ago.
It would take away choosing the council president from the people, and make it a political process within the council. And, it could give the mayor some behind the scenes power in the selection of the council president, making it a less independent, check-and-balance body. That’s one reason the process was changed at the end of the Orville Hubbard era.
DEARBORN IS NOT DETROIT
Some cities, especially the largest cities across the country, do elect city council members in individual districts, with each council member representing only a portion of their city. The most notable example near Dearborn is right next door, Detroit. The Dearborn ballot proposal would create a system that is modeled after the system that began in Detroit 12 years ago.
But, even if someone believes the wards system is warranted in Detroit, Dearborn is a vastly different city. Detroit is 138 square miles in size. Dearborn is 24.5 square miles. Detroit’s population is estimated around 645,700. Dearborn’s is 106,380.
I contend that Dearborn is not so sprawling or populous that it needs to be split up into political subdivisions. We’re not Detroit. And the handful of large cities in the state that do have a wards system – like Warren, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Lansing – are all bigger than Dearborn.
You know who doesn’t see the need to divide its government with city council districts? Dearborn Heights, Allen Park, Livonia, Westland, Taylor, Garden City, Wyandotte, Royal Oak, Novi, Plymouth, Southgate – just about all the cities in our region, other than Detroit. In fact, the City of Wayne used to have a wards system for its council, but residents there voted in 2020 to end their wards and return to an at large system.
IN CONCLUSION
This proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It has the potential to turn the way our government is structured upside down. It would make amendments to the City Charter that are complicated and the details will be mostly unknown to most voters, which brings a high risk of unanticipated consequences.
It would change a system that has been in place, and has worked pretty well, since the city was founded nearly 100 years ago.
And once those changes are embedded in the City Charter, changing them back would be nearly impossible.
So, your vote on this matter November 4 is crucial. I hope you will join me in voting NO on city council wards.