Airport County Commissioner Meetings Dodge Transparency

[XLFD]

Covid-19 shutdowns of public facilities in Michigan and the executive orders that allowed all public meetings to be held virtually, have led to a serious eroding of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), the law which mandates public bodies to hold their meetings in front of the general public.

                   County Commissioners Doing the Oath of Office Shoulder to Shoulder in Times Before Social Distancing

The first barrier such provisions put forth is accessibility by the general public.  In rural areas, like Mason County is, broadband internet access is only enjoyed by less than 50% of the population according to a March 2020 MSU study.  During the shutdown, one could not even visit a neighbor or a public facility and use their equipment.  When more than half of your population cannot attend a 'virtual meeting', it's a travesty of open government.

When you look at the governor's guidance for conducting public meetings virtually until June 15, you see the words:

"A person must not be excluded from a meeting held electronically otherwise open to the public"

It's without any recognition that 1/2 of rural citizens and 1/4 of urban citizens cannot attend that meeting because they lack either the necessary infrastructure or the desire to have internet service.  With that basic right ignored, many others guaranteed under the OMA fall.

As we slowly emerge out of the three month shutdown with 'virtually open' governmental meetings and transition back to true open meetings, we will look at some instances of local public bodies skirting the law and holding almost-secret meetings with little knowledge or any participation of the public. 

Perhaps one of the most evident violations is the 7 PM June 9th Mason County Commissioner's (MCC) meeting.  When the MCC set up their regular meeting schedule, this was on it along with saying they normally meet in the commissioner’s room in the Mason County Courthouse at 304 E. Ludington Avenue.  

The MCC meeting was set to be held in-person, but according to a June 9th article of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) they were to consider items that have been pending since April as well as new items at the Mason County Airport Terminal’s conference room.  The article also listed a number of items on the agenda.  Being that the meeting was to be held at the airport, this was a rescheduled regular meeting of the MCC board recessed from previous months and required public notifications of a special meeting.

Special public meeting notices must state the date, time, and place of the meeting to be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting in a prominent and conspicuous place at both the public body's principal office and on a portion of the [public body's] website that is fully accessible to the public.  The public notice on the website shall be included on either the homepage or on a separate webpage dedicated to public notices for non-regularly scheduled public meetings and accessible via a prominent and conspicuous link on the website's homepage that clearly describes its purpose for public notification of those nonregularly scheduled public meetings (MCL 15.265(4)).

Whereas it seems as if the notice may have been put on the County's website home page as part of their calendar (see below, as it looks now), one cannot find a publicly available agenda for this meeting, nor is it noticed as a special meeting.

So here are some of the problems involved with this meeting.  The COLDNews meeting 'notice' didn't appear on their own website until 5 AM on June 9th, 14 hours before the meeting.  The notice of a rescheduled meeting was not put up on either front door of the courthouse, the public body's main office.  The 'notice' may have been put up on the county website calendar early enough to satisfy the 18 hour requirement, but that's not clear because the notice fails to indicate at what time it was posted to the event calendar.

The lack of an agenda available to the public but apparently available to the local newspaper that morning is also troubling, as is the lack of the rescheduled special meeting findings its way on a page meant for that express purpose. 

I was also surprised to learn that there had been a special commissioner's meeting held on April 30th at the airport, but the only place on the county website with that information was the calendar feature.  The minutes for that meeting reflect that there wasn't any public participation and the COLDNews unofficial notification was the only one with agenda items for this meeting.  As noted for the June 9th meeting, no agendas are available to the general public at the county website.

While the county commission has been substantially compliant with most tenets of the OMA, they can surely do better to include the public; it's even possible they may have wished to quell attendance due to concerns with Covid-19 social-distancing policies.  But in the future, they would make themselves a lot more transparent to the public if they published not only their agendas before well-noticed meetings, but other relevant public records they receive in making their decisions in packets just like they do in the City of Ludington.

[Du Wright]

interesting analogies with checkers and chess.  What is the current Councilor salary, and the Mayors?  I remember a few years back it was raised and instituted during their vote, which I think was against Charter.  I recall doing some math at the time that it wasn't a terrible salary if you took the hours served in meetings.  Seems like it was around $20 an hour (just by hours of meetings), not any other commitments.

[Du Wright]

interesting analogies with checkers and chess.  What is the current Councilor salary, and the Mayors?  I remember a few years back it was raised and instituted during their vote, which I think was against Charter.  I recall doing some math at the time that it wasn't a terrible salary if you took the hours served in meetings.  Seems like it was around $20 an hour (just by hours of meetings), not any other commitments.

[XLFD]

Du Wright, the council's last pay raise was actually made back in the mid 1990s, when they upped each councilor to $3600 per year and the mayor to $4800 (for a total of $30,000 in wages).  Before that move, they received $50 and $100 respectively, but also received a healthy stipend for vehicle expenses (over $20,000 per year), which was lost when they got their raises.  If you give councilors credit for two hours for each bimonthly city council meeting, give them a couple more hours for special meetings thrown in, I count $72/hr, if they attend all meetings and perform their duties minimally.

[Du Wright]

Thanks again, X, for your vast knowledge and memory and for the clarification of Councilor salary.  Although it is a moving figure based on the number of hours per month of meeting attended, in my calculation i probably gave the Councilors more hours of prep time and hours for committee meetings, but nonetheless, it is still a salary that has to be claimed

on a W2.  It is not a "volunteer" position as Mayor Miller has stated.

[XLFD]

Du, that's why I stressed minimal duties since councilors are under no obligation to attend committee meetings, go to coffee hours, prepare for meetings, or even respond to constituents if they desire not to.  They are expected to attend enough bimonthly meetings and vote on things, while staying out of jail.  If we demand they do more, maybe they should get a raise, but I don't believe the substantial raise the county commission gave themselves a few years back has helped attract more quality candidates to run in their elections. 

Each of their seven commissioners comes up for elections every two years and yet in the three elections since they voted themselves raises that would pay them about as much money per year as somebody working full-time at a local factory at minimum wage (for doing less work than city councilors) there hasn't been much competition.  2016: 1 contested primary, 2018:  1 primary, 2 general contested races, 2020:  1 contested primary.  Back in 2010, with 10 districts, you had 7 contested in the fall, in 2012, you had even more involved in primary and general battles because of the wind turbine issue.

Controversy brings out more candidates, contentment brings out less; compensation matters little.