Banned from a Public Meeting, Ten Years Later - The Ludington Torch2024-03-29T04:44:55Zhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/banned-from-a-public-meeting-ten-years-later?feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks, X. So I guess there s…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2021-01-09:4689834:Comment:13044122021-01-09T12:47:28.159ZFreedom Seekerhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/FreedomSeeker
Thanks, X. So I guess there should be minutes of these discussions (deliberatons)? But still, not allowing the public in doesn't seem right. Did you actually try to get into the Marina, or just stand back on the sidewalk, because you have been told that you could be arrested for going into the Marina building?
Thanks, X. So I guess there should be minutes of these discussions (deliberatons)? But still, not allowing the public in doesn't seem right. Did you actually try to get into the Marina, or just stand back on the sidewalk, because you have been told that you could be arrested for going into the Marina building? Thanks for validating my pers…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2021-01-09:4689834:Comment:13040432021-01-09T00:54:26.901ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Thanks for validating my perspective, Willy, and I should mention that the new city attorney, Ross Hammersley, thought otherwise in his advisement. If Covid-19 hadn't ruined the whole court system, this would have likely been taken to federal court already as an infringement of my rights (not to mention the rest of Ludington citizens who subsidize this exclusive, private-acting, marina). </p>
<p>In replying to FS I mentioned the legal definition of 'meeting', the public notice generated…</p>
<p>Thanks for validating my perspective, Willy, and I should mention that the new city attorney, Ross Hammersley, thought otherwise in his advisement. If Covid-19 hadn't ruined the whole court system, this would have likely been taken to federal court already as an infringement of my rights (not to mention the rest of Ludington citizens who subsidize this exclusive, private-acting, marina). </p>
<p>In replying to FS I mentioned the legal definition of 'meeting', the public notice generated indicates that it was considered to be more than a social gathering/tour with potentially a quorum of councilors. I think whether there was nine meetings or one meeting at nine places is a debatable topic and that I would agree with you, but it does not change the basic idea that one meeting (or 1/9 of one longer meeting) was held in a place that city policy deems forbidden to the general public, unless they have a city marina slip (most don't in January).</p> Sec. 2(b) of the OMA defines…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2021-01-09:4689834:Comment:13039432021-01-09T00:16:47.821ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ut3qrgu3rnudyztinrz2ji43))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-15-262" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Sec. 2(b)</a> of the OMA defines a 'meeting' as "<span>the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward (or rendering a decision on) a public policy." According to the CM's report shown below from the…</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ut3qrgu3rnudyztinrz2ji43))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-15-262" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sec. 2(b)</a> of the OMA defines a 'meeting' as "<span>the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward (or rendering a decision on) a public policy." According to the CM's report shown below from the <a href="https://ludingtoncitymi.documents-on-demand.com/?l=789d498c52694de8a41c78a59d8eb8ab&r=F648DF60B80AE113FBDC0E16A3AE5278&d=d39f2407f851eb11a323000c29a59557" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1-11-21 councilor packet</a>, four councilors (Winczewski, Terzano, Cain, and May) attended these tours, the public notice indicates that public policy was likely to be discussed in the half hours at each place. In their defense, the city clerk did post the internet notice 19 hours before the meeting, thereby complying with timeliness of public notice. </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8403809864?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8403809864?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></span></p> I'm not an attorney but it se…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2021-01-08:4689834:Comment:13040222021-01-08T22:51:35.797ZWillyhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/willy
<p>I'm not an attorney but it seems to me that the incident report is wrong about some of the information. The description should not have been trespass. You called the police because you were being forced to leave publicly owned property, that was in fact open to the public. I don't know the legal term but the description should have been harassment or some sort of offense by Christensen against you, because this was an illegal act perpetrated by a City employee against a Ludington citizen.…</p>
<p>I'm not an attorney but it seems to me that the incident report is wrong about some of the information. The description should not have been trespass. You called the police because you were being forced to leave publicly owned property, that was in fact open to the public. I don't know the legal term but the description should have been harassment or some sort of offense by Christensen against you, because this was an illegal act perpetrated by a City employee against a Ludington citizen. You should have been shown, in writing, the ordinance under which Christensen had the authority to order you to leave the premise. Unless you were causing a disturbance, Christensen had no legal right to cause you to vacate the building. This should be a case prosecuted by the City attorney against Christensen. You were not causing the problem, Christensen was. This would be no different than the the beach patrol telling people to leave Stearns beach because only people who live on Lakeshore Drive are allowed to use it. I think this is a very important point you are trying to make and I appreciate your efforts. <br/>It seems to me that this would not have been considered a meeting if this was only a tour of City facilities. If the OMA did consider this a meeting then they actually had 9 meetings. <br/>When is the last time they had a tour of City facilities for the citizens and taxpayers?</p> So, what the difference betwe…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2021-01-08:4689834:Comment:13038362021-01-08T15:30:34.450ZFreedom Seekerhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/FreedomSeeker
So, what the difference between or legally constitutes a "public meeting" from an "Invitation to Tour Facilities and Meet Employes" (with a one-day public notice) or a city council Strategic Planning Meeting in local Brewery? It's obvious that the public wasn't invited any more than they were to the marina swimming pool or the brewery.
So, what the difference between or legally constitutes a "public meeting" from an "Invitation to Tour Facilities and Meet Employes" (with a one-day public notice) or a city council Strategic Planning Meeting in local Brewery? It's obvious that the public wasn't invited any more than they were to the marina swimming pool or the brewery.