Can you imagine...

[Sweater Cows!]

Can you imagine how this site would never have existed and all the FOIA's could have stopped after 2 or three requests?

Can you imagine

-the city was current and following standard business procedures with their records so that:

The City of Ludington actually had proper bids and contracts on the signs for downtown and when asked for those bids through a FOIA they had produced them for viewing or made copies at a reasonable cost.

-The city actually had water tower bids, not just a contract made with the company that recommended they be painted.

-The city was handling there business dealings with the proper bidding, contracting and ordinance procedures laid out in the city charter.

and

IF when anyone asked for the FOIA's for the above and any other city projects they and any other supporting documents whether asked for or not were made available to the requester to view in a timely and affordable manner to show how proper procedure was being followed.

Can you imagine if the city was doing everything they should as they should that we here would have nothing to talk about.

I just cannot imagine a city who follows laws and procedures set out for them in their own charter actually doing things properly. Look at the barriers put up by the city between them and Tom Rotta for him asking for things that any clerk or even receptionist should be able to open a filing cabinet or computer file and have on their hands within minutes.

Can YOU imagine a city who could actually follow their own laws and work in a manner that is ethical and honest and for their residents and citizens.

I can't, what Tom Rotta is facing in Ludington Michigan is what many face across the nation, and it only gets worse going on up the ladder to our federal government, and when we wonder why our country is in the trash heap, we only have to look at this small city government to see where the downfall of the USA has started. Those of you who think Tom Rotta is making a big deal of nothing ask yourself if it was not Mr. Rotta  but the city who made a big deal of what should have been nothing but a few pieces of paper easily accessible  because the city of Ludington government could not prove through their own records they were doing right by the people.

[Willy]

You are right on the money. 

[XLFD]

I may be biased, but I think that's a moot point, Shruggy.  Thanks for your support, I am strengthened by the good folks like yourself that have bravely stood up for our cause despite the slings and arrows you may suffer. 

I got this E-mail earlier tonight, showing some attempt by the City to correct our problems, but I'm amazed by what they still are holding out for.  A fair part of the $5000 they are claiming is nearly $2000 that Shay charged for the projected cost of having the old Building Inspector spend a full week overseeing us while we review the annual summaries of building permits.  This never happened. 

 

 Dear Mr. Rotta and Ms. Swiger:

 

Per our discussion at court, I have prepared an Agreement to settle the pending dispute between the two of you and the City of Ludington.  I believe that the document covers the areas we discussed.  When reviewing the proposal with representatives of the City, I was questioned regarding the type of case dismissal which would take place.  A dismissal without prejudice would have left open the issue of the claim of the City regarding the unpaid FOIA Requests.  However, a dismissal with prejudice would resolve the monetary claim of the City, with no ability for it to be raised in the future.  Based upon our conversation it was my belief that you were anticipating a dismissal with prejudice of the monetary claim.  That being said, the City questioned how it could dismiss a $5,000 claim with no financial consideration.  My discussion with the City representatives led me to the provisions in the attached Agreement that provide for a release of all pending monetary claims and in return the agreement that you would pay for all FOIA costs for requests that you desire be completed (notwithstanding Affidavits of Indigency), up to $500, after which a properly filed Affidavit would be recognized.  That provision was the quid pro quo for the release of the monetary claim of the City.

After you have had a chance to review the Agreement, if it meets with your approval please sign and return the signed copy back to my office.  I'll then will have the Agreement presented for approval of the City Council.  Assuming the Council approves, we'll have it fully executed and provide you with a signed copy. 

 

 

George V. Saylor, III

Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor & Hesslin, P.C.

414 Water Street

Manistee, MI  49660

 

 

[XLFD]

Our reply:  "Much of what you put down is what we discussed and what should have been followed all along.  But, we owe the City no money.  They continue to insult us with this $5000 charge that is baseless under allowable FOIA fees and further evidence of the public extortion that we have encountered throughout our quest for information.

  

Furthermore, the City owes us money for fees illegally accepted, most notably the $57 charge to inspect the 24 water tower records.  They insult us further when they say they would bypass the affidavit of indigency provisions just to get $500 more out of our indigent pockets, when they have spent countless thousands on special projects fees to  illegitimate City Attorneys (including Judge Richard Cooper's own son) to harass us over the last six months.  No deal.

 

We will continue our lawsuit and then pursue the criminal charges as laid out in our prior brief, as well as perjury charges against John Shay for his initial sworn affidavit entered into the court record in mid-February.  City of Ludington, enjoy your corruption while you still have it."

[Sweater Cows!]

So, they want you to pay fees for requests that were never even filled by them? Wow, that is unbelievable. They want to be paid for work they never even did. wow, just wow.

[XLFD]

The appeal now in the courts, Dale, is based on the City not asking for fees or following protocols set in place by local and state law.  The City never gave us an option to attain the records via FOIA. 

What is the amount of fees the City asked for in this case?  I still can't find any fee, whether it be illegitimate or not.  Give me an exact figure, please.  They still haven't.

[XLFD]

To illustrate further the ridiculous fees they wish to charge us, we had in our initial FOIA appeal of April 2010 where we had asked for the City's public records dealing with the Jack Byers lawsuit.  The CM gave us a $600 figure at first with no explanation.  In further inquiries he dropped that figure to $120, explaining it was due to him having to strike Attorney-Client Privileged information from the records, and that his initial fee added the City Attorney's time as well (as disclosed on appeal), which he found he couldn't charge for.  I would have liked to see that information, but the amount he put up was arbitrary. 

Now, according to their documents submitted to court, I find I owe the City $720 for never seeing that information ($600 + $120) in still unexplained fees.

[XLFD]

Dale,

Just one time, please, answer one of my questions before asking me a slew of questions.  That's a pretty annoying habit you have.

One more time, Toni, made a request for signage bids on 1-24-2011, only two of those records were in the set of the couple dozen records we eventually received for this last request.  We paid for 11 copies at $2.75, even though she asked to either inspect or be sent the records electronically. 

Another request made last year by Toni at the end of November for a few records from DDA financial records contained two more of the two dozen records. 

The two requests prior were the same request from me, in an attempt to get an actual rationale for the exorbitant fees that were never justified by the FOIA fee schedule for either of those two requests.  These requests would have been another small subset of our most recent request, and presumably would have had a couple of other records as well.

Consider, we got two dozen records total for this last request with non-exempt material-- thus inspecting them should have netted us a free look.  Do you really think we should have paid over $300 to look at less than 24 pages of documents, all related and likely all referenced in a simple database. 

You will look at that set of data and say "You didn't pay the $300, you shouldn't expect those records."  That's why there's so little hope for you Dale.