Adam Uneven: Ludington's Selective Code of Conduct Enforcement

[XLFD]

This article will first review the content of the City of Ludington's Code of Conduct (LCOC) as it pertains to council and board members and then investigate its application towards two different instances where the code was allegedly broken by a city official. In one case, the official was very publicly reprimanded at a city council meeting without the target or the public seeing the 'offensive' statements which seem not to violate the policy. In the other case, the official was reportedly given a private counseling session with the mayor without any public records being made of the conference or what it was for, despite what appears to be a clear and flagrant violation of the policy.

Cracking the Code

Both violations are regarding section 3 of the code titled "Conduct of Members". The full LCOC can be found beginning on p. 88 of the 5-20-19 LCC meeting minutes. Highlighting relevant parts, we find that the LCOC applies to members of all boards and the council, with the idea behind it being that what any member does reflects on and has an impact on the effectiveness and actions of the rest of the public body.

Section three limits members from a variety of negative actions taken upon the character or motives of other people or other public bodies. When read closely, it doesn't prohibit what is commonly called 'protected speech', political criticism, alternative views, or commentary. However, if the member seems to be personally attacking in some way the character or motives of others, they could be found in violation of this section.

Serna's Circus

On July 22, 2019, Mayor Steve Miller 'reluctantly' brought the first formal code of conduct hearing at the tail end of the city council meeting. It was covered in detail here. The mayor reportedly had met privately with each of the other five councilors before the meeting to make his case for impeachment of Councilor Angela Serna through section 3 of the LCOC. He had previously contacted Serna expressing a desire to talk over the issue with her. When he explained his concerns, she allegedly backed out due to her belief that her social media posts were not in violation of the LCOC.

Neither Serna, the public, nor maybe even the councilors themselves, saw the posts deemed in violation by the mayor, yet she was unanimously declared to have broken the LCOC by her peers, with Councilor Winczewski further saying that Serna was being untruthful, with no explanation. Councilor Winczewski has failed to reply to my E-mails asking her for a statement as to what untruths she spoke of and how any of Serna's posts were rude or disrespectful upon the character or motives of anybody else.

One could interpret her lack of response as an admission that there was neither among her peer's writings, but then one could also conclude that the only liar and the only rude and disrespectful person was the one making unsupported claims that night and saying it was proper.

A few days later, the mayor released the offensive posts. You may read the full context in the link, but here are the posts that made six city officials condemn their fellow 'teammate':

Angela Serna, despite her stridency, is a disciplined social media user. There are no attacks made on the character or motives of anyone or any agency. Some may find her saying the LPD and their Chief are not doing their job is harsh, but it's her opinion and almost indisputable fact in the two cases she mentions. Does it attack Chief Barnett's character or motives in any way? Nope, it explains to the public that the chief believes campers are not 'vehicles'-- when they are (MCL 257.79). The City adopts the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code by reference.  It's been eleven years since I argued the MVC with the chief, but he has his own opinions on what the written laws actually mean even when they counter his view.

So the public needs to ask themselves, what garnered the hysteria for the other elected officials to brand one of their own a heretic without any credible evidence? Of the two officials in front of the tribunal, the mayor had a major disagreement with Serna at the June 17 Rec Marijuana Ad Hoc Committee and minor dust ups at council meetings. Councilor Winczewski's association with Third Coast Development has been unexplained and has led to her changing positions on zoning issues in order to accommodate them; it could explain why she is sensitive about doing secret squirrel stuff, because she appears to be doing exactly that.

Adam's Ribbing

The other complaint regarding violation of section 3 of the LCOC was launched by me, after a Ludington Downtown Development Authority (DDA) officer named Jason Adam decided to slam me, certain voters, this website, and other local grassroots websites looking for accountability. First, we note that Jason Adam is a relatively new member of the DDA, being sworn in at the February meeting of this year (misrepresented as 'Jason Adams'):

The issue started in a non-political website, Vanished Ludington, where somebody had asked what was happening at the end of Ludington Avenue in a post, they were informed it was the West End Project, $500,000 plus used to pour more concrete on the beach, take away parking, and reduce the dune, all to put in a new pedestrian area. Your results may vary, but I was down at the beach watching the SS Badger leave port on Monday night, and counted 34 people within 50 yards of the newly constructed facility. In the fifteen minutes I lingered at the beach, five people crossed over the novelty without stopping, nobody lingered, nobody marveled over the non-native vegetation, nobody watched the Badger leave except from the sand or the nearby parking lot.

But back on topic, I made a comment like many others had before me being critical of the project. After explaining that this project was different than what was paraded before the public inMarch 2016 (see p. 10, the concrete walkway to the breakwater was dropped, the road's end was not made into a rotary but a mini parking lot, no water trailhead structures were made, etc.) Instead of debating the point, Jason Adam weighed in by saying that I didn't contribute any dimes and had no skin in the game, he then paused, thought more of it and told me that I don't pay taxes, I sue the City for the taxpayer's money, I politely told him to stop the defamatory posts:

These are rather serious attacks on my character and motives which were totally unprovoked (see them fully here if you are a VL member). Yet, when he says I didn't donate any money to this project, that puts me in the 99%+ of Ludingtonians who also didn't willingly donate to this project of which he says we don't have any 'skin in the game' as to how this public space is used or abused. I beg to differ for all of us, we are the electorate that are given the power to vote down major changes to our parks, it is an insult to all of us when an official says we are powerless to stop city officials from doing what they want to do with parkland or other city property.

And contrary to Jason's belief, I do pay taxes (unlike the government), I am not somehow immune to them for whatever reason he believes. I even pay local property taxes if that's what he is inferring. And anybody who knows what FOIA and OMA lawsuits are about, knows you can't make money on them in any consistent basis, but when the City violates those laws without remorse, you got to challenge them on principle. Though I've won more times than I lost, I have only lost money overall.

But Jason Adam wasn't finished, he decided to trash me, other citizens, and other social media venues:

I do not know Mr. Adam from Adam, but this city official who swore under oath to protect and defend the Constitution has decided in a publicly-available forum that my page and Concerned Locals of Ludington (CLL) constantly bash and trash the City of Ludington and were 'hater pages'. And while he claims that we were arguing, he was the only participant, attacking me and others three times with me just politely asking him to stop.

Was he attacking my character and motives without any regard for the truth? Yes, and he was attacking the CLL webpage, my website, and telling citizens who actually don't pay property taxes that they have no say in what goes on at public parks or other public places when they most assuredly do. These were not posts critical of an agency's job performance like Angela's were, these were posts that violate every tenet of the LCOC section 3: rude, disrespectful, insulting, name-calling, abusive, personal charges and verbal attacks on people and private entities whose only fault seemed to be in his twisted line of thinking.

I reported this to the mayor and city manager in an E-mail dated June 9th, 20 days after the LCOC policy took effect. I stated (some content edited out for brevity or irrelevancy):

"... I am being harassed by a city official on Facebook with a lot of spurious allegations towards me, citizen-ran websites, and our motives... Adam's posts are deliberately misleading, provocative, and attributes intentions towards me and my character... This city official told me I had no right to express my opinion on the WEP, told me I had to stick to other pages than Vanished Ludington, told me I don't pay taxes (I most assuredly do...) and that my lawsuits are based on my greed for taxpayer money (which I hope you have figured out is not the case over the course of our settlement talks).
Furthermore, this spokesman for the City considers my page and the Concerned Locals Ludington page as COL hater pages, and that we cannot offer alternative views of the COL and love the City at the same time. Is this the orthodoxy that the COL endorses in order to viciously attack and suppress alternate viewpoints while doing things their own way?
I expect a... reasonable solution to his unprofessional behavior... If he does wish to offer an apology, he can provide it to you and you may send it to this E-mail address. Thank you for resolving this issue."

Later that night, I let Jason Adam know I did just that; his reply was a very professional laugh emoji:

Having received no reply, I sent a refresher E-mail to both executive officials the next day, explaining my response and his. The city manager replied:

"... His actions could warrant implementation of pieces of the Code of Conduct that was recently approved by City Council, but again that is a self-policing policy that must be acted upon by the City Council... He is not a spokesperson for the City of Ludington, he does not advertise himself as a Board Member of the Downtown Ludington Board, and does not represent the City in any official capacity outside of his voting role on the Downtown Ludington Board... I will follow-up with the Mayor on this as well."

That evening, the city council was set to go into closed session to consider a legal settlement wrangled after a couple hours of talks at a midweek conference with the mayor, the city manager and their civil attorney. A couple of the terms were based on the city acting in good faith, namely adopting and keeping policies that promoted accountability and transparency and to correct past oversights.  The trust we had built up over this conference for the City ot follow through was essential.   I talked it over with my co-plaintiff, and we both agreed to send a reply that finished with:

"It is unlikely the City will act in good faith in following the OMA at the committee level when they can't even put sanctions on a city official weaponizing Facebook on behalf of the City of Ludington.
Please accept our apologies that we cannot accept the settlement as tentatively agreed upon last Wednesday until you can at least maintain order among your herd of cats."

And when the June 10th meeting started, the settlement session was taken off the agenda, directly because a sworn city official acted like a loose cannon, and the mayor, who is a permanent member of the DDA as well, couldn't even be bothered to intervene as the LCOC allows in its enforcement section. Two days later I received another E-mail from the city manager, where I was informed:

"...the Mayor has had a sit-down meeting with Mr. Adam regarding his comments to make sure he understood the ramifications as well as the impact the Code of Conduct has on participants on the various committees of the City. The Mayor made it clear that they are to be held to a higher standard and that moving forward he should refrain from any actions that may negatively impact the City."

But we let the City know, in no uncertain terms that if there wasn't a written record of this oral counseling session or some act of contrition by Jason Adam forthcoming to the injured parties, that the counseling session was a failure and insufficient to salve the wounds created by this official's conduct. We would only resume negotiations after a month had elapsed and we had a status conference in front of the judge.

Even then, Mayor Miller outright refused to talk about anything regarding the talk he had with Mr. Adam until well into our settlement talks, and this was along the line of him asking me whether I had been further harassed.  His fellow DDA official had attacked the reputations of me and other public-accountability groups, and he showed zero interest in helping mend that fence, despite it being the major barrier to a settlement in a court dispute that could drag on for another year and cost the city tens of thousands more than it would be settling for in order to show that, yes, they repeatedly broke the Open Meetings Act in several different ways.

Contrast that with what happened at the July 22nd meeting, where Mayor Miller opened up enough to tell everyone, without even getting Councilor Serna's defense or telling her which posts were offensive, that the councilor had used her posts to attack the character and motives of the city police, city council, and police chief, when she actually hadn't, and then he wouldn't go into any detail of what was actually posted instead saying that Chief Barnett's character was impugned (or impuned using his spelling). Where Councilor Winczewski amped the hysteria by inferring her fellow councilor was a liar, rude, disrespectful and not a team player without presenting one iota of evidence and showing that she herself possessed all of those traits in spades.

The disparity between these two offenses and between these two punishments would be hilarious if a good councilor wasn't publicly impeached in a kangaroo kouncil kourt for protected speech and an unartful DDA member's intentionally offensive words were not swept under the rug in the mayor's office.

[Freedom Seeker]

Unjustified reprimand on Councilor Serna for pointing out truisms, one which has evidently caused action by the LPD for the very thing she suggested:. Ticketing people crossing the breakwater barriers when they are closed. The other issue with a quorum (2 of 3) members of the licensing committee meeting without a public meeting or including the third member (Serna) certainly smell of violation of the Open Meeting Act. Two councilors involved should have been reprimanded, not Serna.

Unjustified non-reprimand on Jason Adam. Rude. Untruthful, unprofessional behavior posting such libel against Xavier Luft (and he knew who he was talking about).

[XLFD]

You wouldn't believe how reluctant Mayor Miller was to address  the Jason Adam issue at the second settlement conference or tell of what was discussed in their one-on-one, when you see how gung-ho he was to go after popularly elected Council Serna, along with the other five councilors present, none of whom can cast a vote for or against Serna in a general election.  He is all set to undo a popular election, but he's okay with going out of his way to put somebody like Jason Adam on a city board and protect him when he lashes out at the public.  

As jfc123 can attest, this guy was a known firecracker on social media that wouldn't allow facts to get in the way of his assertions and slanders before he became a sworn city official.  Steve Miller, active on the same circuits, saw that and still thought he was a good pick.  This uneven treatment of the people's choice and Steve's choice reflects very badly on the mayor.

[Freedom Seeker]

Harry Truman said, "I don't give them hell. I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell!"

[jfc123]

Adam is a very angry man! Always looking for a fight/argument. Part of the reason he is not on CLL! Good luck with him! It is a complete shame that the 4th ward has no DDA type of help! (yeah not trying to hide my identity)!

[XLFD]

I can accept a good argument or debate on issues, but Jason Adam, while he was on CLL and in that Vanished Ludington post, just cannot follow rules of decorum when somebody else has a different opinion or a set of facts that refutes him.  He goes into full personal attack mode, and he will use anything, true or not, to slam back.  That's unbecoming of a city official, especially when he's defending the city by defamation and degradation of others.

[Willy]

Adams needs to be reprimanded and removed from the board. Likewise, the mayor should also be reprimanded for not performing his duties and for trying to intimidate a resident/citizen and allowing his pit bull to harass citizens. Time for a new mayor.

[jfc123]

Sorry to correct Willy, but pit bulls! Plural. Remember the one he (the mayor) invited to a meeting cuz its like a wwf match who posted pics from inside and said bad things of a citizen? In his post he quoted the mayor.

[XLFD]

The timing of Jason Adam's tirade on Facebook and his making claims about suing the city just happened to be shortly after the mayor sat in on a settlement conference for a lawsuit where the City of Ludington's position all along is that they haven't been running roughshod over the Open Meetings Act, when the plaintiffs and the judge are pointing out otherwise.  

Even so, the mayor was popularly elected in 2018, just like Angela Serna was (over an incumbent, in her case), so absent a very egregious infraction, I do and will resent any attempt by the council, or by any individual or group of citizens outside of the initiative and recall process, to take away their powers.  

Saying the LPD aren't doing their job, when it was apparent they weren't, and that other councilors were doing secretive stuff, when it was apparent they were, is what the public should want from all of their councilors: honest assessments of how city officials are or are not, doing their jobs.

There was no reason for Adam's personal attacks on the characters and motives of citizens and their organized groups other than to show what a misinformed jackass he is.