Charter Amendments Fall Short on Accountability, a Newspaper Editorial

[XLFD]

A hearty thanks to the new managing editor of the Ludington Daily News, Patti Klevorn, for publishing in its entirety an essay I wrote regarding the proposed charter amendments, and how they were not a good fit for the community in today's newspaper at the top of page 5. 

Whereas, plenty more could be added explaining why these proposals fall short because of how they could so easily be abused by a cavalier city manager acting outside the public's interests, the reasoning above applies even without such being noted.  Please, offer constructive critiques or support in the comments below.

[XLFD]

When Grandpa (Ganja?) Gary assumes the mantle of mayor, those grandkids of his have already made plans to replace all those vegetable plants down at the Community Garden with hemp, undoubtedly because those boy scouts want to make some rope.  Talk about 'community development'.

After-FNL parties will never be the same again. 

[AQUAMAN]

Those two were friendly like thick, until somethings happened the last year. The Nepotism factor at the municipal marina and elsewhere is still strong and multiplying though. 

[Brad]

Kinda surprised that the "innocent" budget proposal passed. X you indirectly called it. And I believe it what was of course what was between the lines that people didn't see when they read it (if they read it). That those 14 days puts it around Thanksgiving when even less citizens will be paying attention and the city can "loosen their belt".

[XLFD]

I was encouraged the other day when a complete stranger came up to me and effectively stated they had thought the three proposed charter amendments were 'harmless' before they read my letter to the editor and changed their votes. 

While that was probably not the typical response, it did get me to thinking. 

The COLDNews has a circulation of around 7500 (at least in the latest figure I found) and if only one-half of 1% of those primary readers (not including their families who may also look at the paper or those who have seen it here) read my analysis and changed their 'yes' vote to a 'no' vote, then the 37 change-over votes actually led to the rejection of the two proposals that would have otherwise passed.  

Considering that city leadership, the city council, and local media had only good things to say about these proposals, there was only one outlet that put forth the truth of what these proposals were all about and urged rejection.  This is a great distinction, especially when it coincided with popular opinion on two of three of the proposals.

[AQUAMAN]

Maybe you need to write more future letters to the new LDN editor, good job X. However, I also think the silent majority saw thru this obvious worded power grab by Shay, it's about time too. I'll bet he was steaming last Tuesday too, lol. 

[XLFD]

Indubitably, most people who pay any attention at all to city affairs had a problem with the two that failed, witness that even candidates Brandy Henderson and David Buskirk both said they would vote no.  The two councilor-at-large candidates that offered support for all three proposals finished third and fourth, which is indicative that the public didn't want more 'yes-men'. 

The problem is reaching the deaf majority of Ludington residents who vote through rote and at best will get any information they receive from the COLDNews, MCP or local radio.  Provided the media source does report without bias (which it often doesn't), they often only provide one side (provided by decidedly biased city officials)-- which amounts to coverage that is not fair and balanced.

[shinblind]

Hey X, would you happen to know how these proposals came into being?

Who birthed these these things anyway, who are the proud parents?

Or is the lineage of this lost in the anus annals of city history?

[XLFD]

I think it's fairly evident from the original seven deadly sins and what I said in September 2014 when these proposals were paraded out that the only ones to benefit from each and every one was the city manager, with an indirect benefit to the city council who are able to shift accountability away from them.  In that respect, barring any other admissions that won't likely come to light without an investigation, I would give parenthood to John Shay and the three committee members listed in the summary I gave then:

SUMMARY:  In looking at the proposed changes, one cannot but note what the goals of these initial amendments are in scope.  A lot more latitude and powers are granted to one position, the City Manager, as if he was instrumental in crafting the amendments.  If he wasn't, we have Councilors Winczewski, Rathsack and Holman from the committee showing undue confidence in the current city manager, enough to grant him more on his plate.  Even when he couldn't handle the FOIA Coordinator aspect of his job, and was fired from that position for his costly mistakes.

The proposals that do not give more power to this one office either cut back on the City of Ludington's current transparency and open-ness, or allow less accountability (how can you violate your oath of office if you never take an oath of office?).  There is not one proposal that makes the Ludington government more accountable to the people, more open, or more likely to actually serve the interests of the people.  Not one. 

Most of these amendments are actually based on charter sections that I've caught the current crop of local politicians breaking at one time or another, that they want to make legal so that they don't break them again when trying to sneak something through, or take away more of your rights and property.  It's a pretty pathetic attempt to change the charter for their own benefit, not the people of Ludington's.  Which is what the Ludington City Charter represents, much like the Constitution and Bill of Rights does for America.

[AQUAMAN]

Astute and accurate synopsis X. I too look at the City Charter the same way, it's the Ludington Constitution for all elected and appointed officials to follow and obey. Now cometh the Power Grabbers from down-state taking over here. Shay and Wilson are both the main culprits that want it amended all the time. One won't even take an oath of office after 10+ years yet, nothing is said nor done about it either.