Dickering Over Dillon

[XLFD]

Today, the West Shore Community College Board of Trustees met at four o'clock to talk things over with their attorney, J. Patrick White of the Grand Rapids Varnum Law firm being the only declared item on the agenda.  If not for being alerted to the meeting by one of the Ludington Torch's dedicated members, I would have missed it. 

                The West Shore Community College Seal Features a Prominent Torch and Features Community Service as its Standard

 

True, Mason County Press and the Ludington Daily News did both have an article on this special meeting two days ago, and the meeting was posted at their main office, but contrary to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (MCL 15.265(4)) which says: 

"... a special meeting of a public body... shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting... and (if the public body directly or indirectly maintains an official internet presence that includes monthly or more frequent updates of public meeting agendas or minutes) on a portion of the 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 nonregularly 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." 

 

People like myself who don't regularly go to the central business office of WSCC and depend on Facebook feeds from the local paper, the MCP, or other out of town sources for local news can easily overlook such notice for special meetings.  By using the word "shall" the OMA adapted itself to the computer age a couple of years ago to reflect that people are a lot more likely to visit a website rather than a brick-and-mortar public facility to check notices for a public body, and that any notice of a special meeting must be put on their website.

 

I took screen shots of WSCC's home page and 'board meeting dates' page last night after 10:00 PM and this morning, where no notice existed.  None existed anywhere.  Although they effectively violated the law, however, they would likely be protected from their negligence by using a defense of "substantial compliance", a recent judicial safeguard used when a public body fails to obey the OMA's mandatory provisions, but covers enough bases to show they did not totally fail in giving some public notice.  A judge with sympathies would look at their sending a press release to local news agencies and posting it at WSCC as 'good enough'. 

 

Seventeen days ago, I mentioned that at two of their recent meetings, the WSCC Board of Trustees failed to justify going into closed session with reasons acceptable to the OMA, those I believe are beyond 'substantial compliance' with the OMA's permissible purposes for closing off the meeting to the public.   I briefly let the board know about this in the public comment I made at this meeting. 

 

The meeting was attended by several students even though there wasn't anything else on the agenda other than the board almost immediately going into closed session to discuss Dr. Dillon's future.  The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), the Manistee News Advocate, and WMOM radio all had representatives that attended and waited the nearly two hours that the board was in closed session.  Most of the students dispersed as the clock ticked into the second hour.

                                                        WSCC's Board of Trustees plus Dr. Dillon, far right

 

After the pledge of allegiance was done and the role call was performed (Steve Urka and Mike Ennis were absent) they called for public comment.  I got before the board and delivered the following speech, understandably nervous being that this was the first time I spoke in front of this crowd: 

 

"My name's Tom Rotta, resident of Mason County, and former adjunct faculty member teaching mathematics at this institution.  Since that time, I have developed an interest in transparency and ethical standards being met at public institutions.  I have noticed that the West Shore Board may be lacking in some of those standards in its public conduct since President Chuck Dillon drove super drunk through Manistee County in a vehicle supplied by the public.

A quick look at the college's revenues show that about 70% of the revenue for running this college comes from state revenue and local property taxes, which makes this college a public institution that needs to be answerable and open to the public.  Furthermore, the West Shore Board of Trustees serves as a 'public body' in the college for all intents and purposes of the Open Meetings Act.  But even beyond obeying the tenets of that Act, the board's overall goal should be to conduct its meetings and other business transparently to its creditors, the people, who are mandated to pay for this institution.

That's why I have been distressed to see this board dodge openness in its meetings since the incident involving the college president.  Going into closed session and not alerting the public fully to the holding of special meetings is anathema to the public's right to know what's going on, particularly when it is done for all the wrong reasons. 

For example, on August 11, the board met in closed session in what the minutes would call "for the purpose of discussion of his recent conduct."  At the September 15 session they called a closed session for a periodical evaluation of the president.  A quick look through the last few years records show that President Dillon's periodic evaluations have only happened in the spring. 

Either of these closed sessions was technically in violation of the Open Meetings Act, for the reasons that such purposes are not deemed valid by that act.  The minutes of those meetings should be made public.  I would encourage the board to vote no on closing the meeting tonight, even if the purpose in this case under the act may be valid.  The taxpayers should know where the members of the board stand on the issue of President Dillon and whether his continued service would be positive or detrimental to our community.

 

President Dillon's actions were fully contrary of standards of someone who holds an office like his.  Don't compound the problem by repeatedly violating the spirit and the letter of the Open Meetings Act in defense of his unprofessional behavior with unprofessional behavior of your own. 

 

On a personal note, nearly, 20 years ago, while I was teaching summer classes out here, I was working at the Ludington State Park and I was hit by a drunk driver who had less blood alcohol content than Dr. Dillon had on the night he was stopped.  I was thrown nearly 70 feet in the air according to witnesses, landed on pavement and somehow survived.  Dr. Dillon could have easily had a similar incident while he was driving in the company car.  Perhaps you have seen the video where he was unable to count backwards from four or recite the alphabet.   Can he make an effective president after that?" 

After I sat back down a retired teacher and a non-traditional student attending WSCC, Marti Cupp, got up and delivered a defense of Doctor Dillon.  She compared and contrasted Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinski with what happened with Dillon and his traffic stop.  As reported by Steve Begnoche of the COLDNews, she said:

 

"Dr. Dillon immediately admitted his guilt and offered no excuses. Like President Clinton, President Dillon's personal integrity will be forever impacted and his professional image will be forever tarnished.

"To return to my introductory point about perspective, I challenge those who would use this one incident to justify removing Dr. Dillon from office. My question is why should Dr. Charles Dillon, the president of our local community college, be held to a higher standard and punished to a greater degree than was Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States?"

These are faulty comparisons.  Dillon has chosen every opportunity to keep the public issue behind closed doors by asking for and getting two closed sessions, both illegally and unethically granted for a 'periodic evaluation' which wasn't, and for 'discussion of the president's recent conduct' which isn't even close to a legitimate reason for calling closed sessions.  He told the officers who stopped and arrested him for drunk driving that he just had a couple of drinks whereas the blood draw test results shown his blood alcohol content could only be if he had like a dozen or more.

 

One could also add that getting a hummer from an intern is a lot different than endangering the lives of everyone in our community by super drunk driving between Elberta and Manistee, and being stopped by police in the midst of a serious felony is a lot different than being caught with your pants down years later.  How is Dr. Dillon going to say he was innocent when his guilt is on videos and blood tests?

 

But after she sat down, and the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to go into closed session using section 8a (Trustee Dick Wilson added this to the resolution) and 8h of the OMA as the rationale, I couldn't help but think that what had just happened had the feel of closing arguments at the end of a trial, with me doing a prosecutor's spiel followed by an argument from Ms. Cupp that sounded more like a defense attorney. 

 

The verdict came back after about 110 minutes, and no decisions on Dr. Dillon's future was determined, however, they  voted to have the college staff and its legal counsel conclude their investigations and report back at the Oct. 19 board meeting with a hope of possibly making a decision then.  Three trustees thanked the public for their patience, and assured the public that they are only trying to do things legally and correctly. 

 

Fair enough, but why then hold hours of closed meetings if you want to show that to the public, and mask some of the closed meetings behind specious rationales?   

[XLFD]

 I thought so too, in fact I thought it was a very good use of what is called a Clintonian defense.  The term has entered the lexicon to mean a defensive or revisionary argument which may be legally or logically correct, while the defense remains obscure and foolish to a reasonable person's assessment of content and ordinary meaning, such as when President Clinton said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."

As a rule Clinton's defenders were mislead into defending him on false premises, and used arguments that equated Clinton's actions to just consensual sex with someone outside his marriage.  That may ring true if you're not paying attention, but when you look at the perjury and obstruction of justice that were hard to deny that Clinton engaged in, the actual focus of his problems were not at all in the sexual realm. 

[Willy]

Very good points X. I agree with your analysis of the situation. Regarding the woman that spoke in favor of retaining Mr. Dillon. I can only say that she must be a flaming liberal to use Clinton's case in comparison to Dillon's and think that the  scenario she describes which is then pictured in people's minds would somehow sway them to feel sympathetic towards Dillon. Whenever I hear Clinton's name used in reference to his sexual liaisons I always picture his "horniness" moaning and groaning with his head held back and looking up as though he's inspecting the ceiling for stray spots of love juice from his previous encounters. Comparing Dillon to a dog in "heat" doesn't exactly stir feelings of confidence.

[XLFD]

The COLDNews article did say Marti Cupp was a friend of the Dillon family, which I presume that Mr. Begnoche knows for a fact.  She did offer a challenge as to debate anyone who uses this one incident to justify removing Dr. Dillon from office in her speech, but neither of us took to debate in the long wait. 

People get removed from their job everyday justified by one incident; incidents a lot less dramatic than what happened here.  I must admit I lost a job in the private sector for the explicit reason of an innocent Ludington Torch post on LPD's Sergeant (Dean) Schultz where I parenthetically asked the reader to make their own Hogan's Heroes joke after otherwise commenting favorable on the officer.  That my boss had to answer to cop-fetishist Ludington Mayor John Henderson to keep his own contract at Oxychem may have been a deciding factor, LOL.

[Willy]

You just described what happens when someone stands up to the tyrannical mindset of Ludingtons politicians and people wonder why others don't step up in front of City Council and demand a stop to their lawlessness. The fact that Henderson's influence cost you your job just shows folks what will be in store for them if they get out of line.

Cupp needs to step up and admit how serious the situation was when Dillon drove "super drunk" through heavy traffic. She should take a visit to a head injury or paraplegic ward  of hospitals and see the damage drunk driving causes. She only makes a fool of herself by trying to convince others that what he did does not merit serious consequences.

[XLFD]

The next meeting of the board will be in a couple of weeks, so maybe she will have a better defense than comparing apples to oranges via Dillon with Clinton.  If any of the readers here can spare the scrutiny and conquer the butterflies of speaking in front of a college board, I would suggest speaking up at that meeting if you believe that Dr. Dillon's usefulness to the college has been compromised by his actions. 

I will be putting up another thread before that meeting showing how saying this is based on one incident of DWI, is like saying that Monicagate was only about sex.

[Paul Jensen]

the Ludington Daily Fish Wrap but Sundays and the college have always had a cozy relationship

[Paul Jensen]

The entire board should step down.

[Willy]

I agree Paul. If the board permits Dillon to stay then they themselves should be tossed out.

[Paul Jensen]

If they knew he had a drinking problem and gave him a college car they have no integrity left and should step down

if they did not know they were not doing their job and should step down.

Make you wonder how many of them have a drinking problem themselves!

[XLFD]

I am inclined to believe that the board is not conducting an investigation with the interests of the people in mind and have only chosen non-transparency up to this point in a matter that is not making them or the college look good.  I have attended the last two meetings of over two hours length each, and I am still no closer to knowing any of the board members opinions on what to do, and whether they are for or against retaining someone who has tarnished the image of WSCC by doing what he did, lying about what he did, and by not offering his resignation which should have been immediately accepted. 

[Paul Jensen]

they all sit on each others boards to cover one anothers asses/

[Johnny]

I agree, Ms Cupps comments were just ridiculous.  How you can make a statement like that and feel that there is a close comparison is laughable.  Also, there should be no need to have so many meetings about this.  People are getting upset about this being in the news and calling it a "mistake."  This is a man who is the face of a Community College in the area.  Not only does he represent Mason County, but all of the surrounding counties.  Not only did he put his life on the line due to his poor driving (watch the video people) but he put a lot of other people lives on the line on a main round, in a busy city, in the middle of the summer.  While doing all of these acts, he was in a vehicle paid for by the residents of this county and by students who are paying out off their butt to go to school.  At the end of the video, he his placed under arrests and then wants special treatment due to who he is and who he thinks he knows.  How many of us would act like that?  People want to say he is just the President of a Community College and he made a mistake....but look how he acted.  Does it seem like he had any regrets or remorse?  Nope he felt he should just get a ride home because he has is doctorate, because hes the President, and because he "knows the chief."