Arrogant Ludington City Councilors Refuse Court Papers for OMA Violation

[XLFD]

The charge I leveled in my complaint with the 79th District Court last week was rather difficult to get around when you objectively view the facts, the minutes of the May 20, 2013 meeting, and the video of that meeting (below), which shows 33:15 into it a speech wherein I ironically talk about morality in government and end it with a point of order, telling the councilors that the notice posted for this meeting was insufficient by the Open Meetings Act, and that deliberating and decision making at that meeting would be a violation of that law.  You can then hear Mayor Henderson saying "Comment duly noted." followed by various deliberations and decisions, ergo violations of the law.

May 20, 2013 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

There were no challenges to my legal point, no challenges to what was posted (the city hall bulleting board had only a notice that the meeting would be held at 6:30 PM, not at 1:00 PM), but the business at hand was apparently too important to have our elected officials abide by the law.  When you can rationalize away such things like these you begin to rationalize away a lot of other laws that are meant to corral governmental power and provide transparency.  Many of those have been brought into the light here, at the Ludington Torch through the years.

 

The legal infraction is obvious, five of the seven elected officials had been recognized by local Circuit Court Judge Richard I Cooper in February as violating the Open Meetings Act back in 2011 when they okayed nearly $100,000 worth of sewer work without a bid, and in total secrecy of the people of this city of Ludington, in an E-mail voting scheme.

 

So what we have here is a crime caught on camera, brazenly and willfully committed by seven elected officials with plenty of other officials (including a silent city attorney) in attendance, most of who admitted to a very closely related crime just three months earlier, and put into the official record by their own vote at the next meeting.   Seems like they should just admit to their action, and pay the fine and have this incident over and behind them. 

 

But not so fast.  They still can waste everyone's time and money, and erode any confidence we still may have in our local officials, by refusing to accept the summons and complaint that they knew was coming to them, as seen below for the senior city councilor, Kaye Holman, and lame duck mayor John Henderson (the other five are similar):

 

 

The district court, who wanted to be in control of process serving, sent this out to all parties at their corporate address at the Ludington City Hall.  Someone made the decision to out-and-out refuse to accept these certified letters.  That is important to note, that they were refused.  One would think elected officials would not duck and hide from letters sent from the 79th District Court that may have some other kind of business inside it. 

 

But once again they are choosing the path of non-transparency and arrogance, and this refusal of process serving is about as telling as their refusal to follow the Open Meetings Act, when the plain language of that law is read to them before they voluntarily violate it.  Is this really what we want to find acceptable? 

 

 

The Ludington City Council and Mayor Henderson (bottom middle).  White halo (Richard Rathsack) has not been implicated in either OMA violation, yellow circle (John Henderson) was part of the E-mail circuit for the previous OMA violation but had no vote, and is implicated in this violation.  Orange circle (Nick Tykoski) was not a City Council member at the time of the first violation, but is for this latest one.  Red circles (clockwise from top center, Kaye Holman, Wanda Marrison, Gary Castonia, Les Johnson, and Wally Taranko) are councilors involved with both OMA violations.

[stump]

XLFD, the letters were sent certified restricted, that means that person is the only one that can accept the letter If the person wasn't at the address it was sent to, [ the city hall ] at the time the mail man showed up to drop off the mail the letters could not be accepted, so they were returned. A regular certified letter could be signed by anyone. Try again.

[XLFD]

That's what I thought may have happened too, Stump, but then I looked at the USPS Manual.  Section 507 1.4.1 delineates all USPS 'endorsements' where "refused" is specifically "Addressee refused to accept mail or pay postage charges on it.".  Since 'refused' is the endorsement, and the postage was proper, the "Addressee refused to accept mail."  That's what the outside of this letter indicates.

For further verificationm in section 508, 1.1.2, it says under Recipient options:  "Refusal at Delivery
-The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery." 

Here's more on restricted delivery, which indicates the endorsements listed in sec. 507 are still properly used for these pieces. 

Unless the USPS agent improperly endorsed this mailing label, the addressees refused to accept the mail delivered to their corporate address.  If the seven offenders weren't at city hall at delivery, the USPS would generally leave behind a slip to pick up their certified mail at the post office.  This has happened with me before; so I can only deduce that they actively refused these summonses.

[XLFD]

And that's why this should be a story with grave political consequences for the Ludington City Hall and Hizzoner Henderson.  Why are they being so dodgy intead of facing the music for the unlawful choice they made on May 20?  Fortunately for them, the local media apologizes for or defends whatever they do, and downplays or attacks what the people do in the name of the law. 

It shall indeed be tried again, this coming Monday evening with personal service.  They will be given a summons they can't refuse.